Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BILL PRESENTED

PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.), BILL

"to amend the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Acts, 1911 to 1936," presented by Mr. Creech Jones; supported by Mr. Noel-Baker, Mr. Glenvil Hall and Mr. Rees-Williams; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY LAWS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.6 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is concerned only with those Defence Regulations and emergency enactments which were prolonged until 31st December this year by the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946. The main purpose of that Act was to prolong, with modifications, some emergency enactments and some Defence (General) Regulations to the number of about 50, that is, excluding mere machinery provisions, and the whole or part of some 26 codes of other Defence Regulations. Those regulations and enactments were all that remained of the Defence Regulations, except the corpus of regulations dealing with economic controls, preserved by the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945.

The Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, extended the Defence Regulations and enactments included in it to 31st December of this year. Those in the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act were extended to 10th December, 1950.
I had hoped, and so stated during the Committee stage of the 1946 Act, that, if it should be necessary to keep in force any of these regulations, we should be able to deal with them through the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Some doubt was expressed at the time whether this would be possible, and, after careful study, I have come to the conclusion, that that course of procedure must be abandoned for at least three reasons. The first is that it is not possible, in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, to make amendments in emergency enactments, and we do not desire to continue all those enactments in their present form. It is not possible to enact permanently in that Measure any Defence Regulations which we believe should now become part of the Statute law of the country. When we come to the Clauses I shall show that we are proposing that some of the uncontroversial regulations, which have been of great administrative advantage during their currency, should become permanent. Nor is it possible to repeal any of the emergency enactments which are included in the 1946 Act if we use the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill procedure. Therefore, we have introduced this Bill, which will, during the Committee stage at least, enable the reason for the continuation of any Defence Regulation to be debated, and will also enable Amendments, if it is desired that they should be made, to be put down to any of the Defence Regulations which it may be proposed to continue.
I have taken the opportunity afforded by this Bill to reach a quite definite conclusion on the present fate of each of the subsisting regulations, and to group them into broad categories, for each of which definite treatment can be recommended to the House. These regulations fall into four categories. First, there are those to be dispensed with at the end of this year. They number almost half of those which were included in the Act of 1946. Then there are some which are required for a short time longer and the reason for which will, in our opinion, not much longer remain. We have put


those into a second category. In fact, some of them will be embodied in legislation during the current Session in Bills which will be introduced by some of my right hon. Friends when dealing with the subject matter which covers such regulations. Then there is a third category—about a score of those Defence Regulations which we think may be required for at least three years. Some of these undoubtedly will be embodied in permanent legislation during that period but, as they may raise controversial issues, I do not think that it would be appropriate to include them in this Measure for enactment as part of the permanent legislation of this country. Then we come to the fourth category, which includes those of a non-controversial character which have proved useful in administration. We propose to make them into permanent enactments with such modifications as are printed in the Second Schedule. When embodied in the law they will take the form which is provided in the Second Schedule.
The Defence Regulations form the major bulk of the provisions to be dealt with in the Bill. Also, we are prolonging certain wartime Statutory provisions and we are repealing a few. I shall deal with those during my explanation of the Clauses. There is one thing further to which I ought to call attention in this general review, and that is that any provision which is extended beyond the end of this calendar year can be further prolonged under this Measure for not more than a year at a time if both Houses support an Address asking for it. It will take the form of what is generally known here as the Affirmative Resolution. In order to prolong any of these Defence Regulations after the period fixed in the, Bill, it will be necessary for both Houses to ask that the Order in Council shall be made.

Clause 1 deals with the categories of Defence Regulations. Clause 1, (1, a) sets out the Defence Regulations and the parts of Defence Regulations which are to end on 31st December of this year. They are set out in Part I of the First Schedule. Each regulation is clearly set out and I have endeavoured to follow the same practice throughout. Clause 1 (1, b) deals with the regulations the need for which

we anticipate will disappear during the year 1948, some because they will be embodied in permanent legislation during that period and others because we anticipate that the need for them will have disappeared during that time. Clause 1 (1, c) deals with those to be kept in force up to a date not later than 10th December, 1950. None will be kept longer than they are required. Some will disappear with their embodiment in permanent legislation. I think it is right to give notice now that others may be required at any rate beyond 31st December, 1948. There is a power in this Bill to revoke any of them the moment they become unnecessary. We have chosen 10th December, 1950, because that is the date up to which the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act of 1945 carries its own regulations. Therefore, on that date all the unexpired regulations, whether continued by this Bill or by the Act I have just quoted, will come up for consideration together.

In assigning each regulation to its particular category, I have considered most carefully what is the probable, length of time for which it will be required. During the Committee stage of the Bill, Ministers in charge of the Departments who use certain regulations will be present to defend the continuation of any regulation and the assignment of it to the category in which we have included it. I hope that we shall be able to arrive at some general agreement with regard to the proper assignment of these regulations to particular categories.

Clause 1 (2) continues the Defence Regulations as modified in the Act of 1946, that is to say, they are continued in the form in which they appear in the printed volume dated 24th February, 1946, with one exception and that is Defence Regulation 16. I assured the House, when the 1946 Act was before it in the form of a Bill, that this regulation would be sparingly used, and I think that an examination of what has been done under it will prove that that pledge has been carried out. It is a regulation which I have always regarded with considerable misgiving. As a Vice-President of the Common Footpaths and Open Spaces Preservation Society, I could hardly do otherwise. I sincerely regret that on occasions I have had to appear in the somewhat unusual guise of gamekeeper turned


poacher, a most reprehensible form of activity, except when engaged in under the strongest compulsion.

I have further restricted the use to which this regulation can be put, and I have set out in formal terms in Part IV of the First Schedule the exact form that this regulation will have in future. The only person who will be able to use it will be the Minister of Fuel and Power. The power of making a new Order under this regulation is withdrawn from everybody except the Minister of Fuel and Power, and he can only use it for two purposes—that of working opencast coal or constructing or extending an electricity generating station. Under that power, he may make an Order providing for the stopping up or diversion of any highway passing over the land which is to be the subject of his operations. I hope it will be for the convenience of the House, in discussing this regulation, that it is set out so clearly in Part IV of the First Schedule.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why he has given the power to the Minister of Fuel and Power, whereas it is the Minister of Works who does the requisitioning of sites eventually used for opencast coal mining?

Mr. Ede: Because the Minister of Fuel and Power is the person who can justify the use for which it is required. It is true that the Minister of Works may requisition the land, but he could hardly be expected to deal with any technical reasons there might be for wanting to close or divert a particular highway. I think it is desirable that it should be the Minister of Fuel and Power, but after all, in the form in which this is submitted, it will be open to anybody who thinks that another Minister other than the Minister of Fuel and Power should be vested with this power to put down an Amendment to that effect when we are in Committee. Clause 1 (3) continues various provisions of the Act of 1946 applying to Defence Regulations, and it carries over the provisions of the 1946 Act to those regulations which are continued. These include the provision enabling any Defence Regulation to be revoked.

Clause 2 enacts permanently a few of the Defence Regulations included in Part I of the First Schedule. These cease to have validity as Defence Regulations, and

their purpose is achieved for the future by their enactment as permanent legislation in the modified form set out in the Second Schedule. Perhaps it would be as well, if hon. Members will turn to the Second Schedule, that I should say a few words in justifying the inclusion of each of these in the Schedule. The first paragraph reproduces Regulation 40AA of Defence (General) Regulations enabling the Admiralty, the Army and Air Councils to employ special constables in cases in which, under existing legislation, they cannot be employed. It seems an astonishing gap in the law that this should not be possible. It enables civilians to be used for some of this work which otherwise might have to fall on military guards, and as there appears to be no prospect of any legislation covering this point being introduced in the near future, it seems desirable that we should continue what has proved to be both efficient and economical. Paragraph 2 reproduces Regulation 9 of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, and authorises provost marshals and their staffs of any of the three Services to exercise the powers of provost marshals of the other Services. This again cannot be obtained by amendments of the Annual Army or Air Force Acts—

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Why not?

Mr. Ede: So I am advised by Parliamentary counsel. If it can be suggested, I am willing to consider the matter, but we have been advised that it is not possible to include it in either of those Measures and, of course, those Acts do not apply to the Royal Navy, which introduces a complication that arises also on the regulation continued in the third paragraph. This reproduces Regulation 10A of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations enabling documentary evidence of arrest to be given where a naval officer or seaman is taken into naval custody on a charge of desertion or of absence without leave, or where a naval officer surrenders. This provision is included in the Army and Air Force Annual Acts, and I am advised by the Admiralty that no injustice has been inflicted on officers and ratings of the Royal Navy by the operation of this Regulation during its currency, and we think it should now be embodied in permanent regulations.
Paragraph 4 reproduces Regulation 57C of the Defence (General) Regulations, and


deals with an anomaly which we have been able to avoid during the currency of the regulations. Under the Explosives Act of 1875, explosives sent by rail have to be sent in special gunpowder vans, and not more than five are allowed in any one train. Curiously enough, however, these restrictions do not apply to explosives produced in Royal Ordnance factories. I do not know whether in 1875 they had misgivings as to the quality of explosives. I know that in the adjoining village to the town in which I was born there was a powder factory, and the boys in my town always used to taunt the boys of the other village on being responsible for the German victory at the Battle of Sedan because the powder supplied to the French Army was made in this adjoining village.

Mr. McAdam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this prohibition did not apply during the war years?

Mr. Ede: That is the point of trying to continue the Regulation now. We think we should embody it in the law in the form we have here, which will grant similar exemption to explosives produced for a Government Department by a contractor. These are, of course, inspected before they leave the factories, and no difficulty has arisen during the transport of this material while the regulation has been in force. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 reproduce, with drafting Amendments, Regulations 17B, 17C and 17D of the Defence (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1940. They are useful additions to the existing law relating to affiliation and maintenance orders. They are designed to help the parties by providing means by which applications may be dealt with by the most convenient court, having regard to the residences of the parties and their witnesses. These proposals are outside the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill.
Clause 3 deals with certain matters relating to agriculture. The Acts mentioned in this Clause authorises the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture to make grants of £2 per acre in respect of grassland ploughed up before 1st January, 1948, which land was either put under tillage crops or reseeded to grass, provided the land has either been under grass for three years or is in the third calendar year from the date of sow-

ing. As part of the agricultural extension programme announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on the 21st August, the payment of such grants is to be continued for a further two years to ensure that land qualifying can be brought into production before the end of the four-year programme. The rate of grant for ploughing after 21st August is to be doubled. This Clause confers the necessary powers in these respects on the Ministers concerned. At the same time the opportunity is being taken of rectifying an anomoly in the ploughing grant conditions by introducing a new definition of "season" to make it clear that land sown to grass in 1945 can be eligible for grant in 1948. This Clause, if discussed in Committee, will be defended by my right hon. Friends or representatives of their Departments.
Clause 4 extends until 10th December, 1950, certain other emergency provisions relating to agriculture. These provide for the suspension of the powers of the Wheat Commission and their exercise by the Ministry of Food. They relate to land drainage, for example, thus giving the Ministry of Agriculture power over dams and sluices to prevent injury to agricultural land. Clause 5 continues six Sections of the 1946 Act, including the operation of seven Acts specified in this Section. I am quite prepared to mention them in detail, but I think it is a matter which might be left to the Committee stage of the Bill unless any Member requires justification of the inclusion of any particular Act at this stage.
Clause 6 deals with a difficulty that confronted us at the end of the war when it was found that local authorities were probably not armed in every case with power to enter on land to complete the removal of air raid shelters and other war works, and Section 12 of the 1946 Act was introduced to remove doubts as to their power in this matter. This Clause enables them to continue their work where it is necessary for demolition and removal and the making good of land. Clause 7 is one which enables any Defence Regulation extended by this Bill or any enactment contained in Part I of the Act of 1946 to be continued by the affirmative Resolution of both Houses. Clause 8 enables Colonial Governments to maintain the Defence Regulations until 10th December, 1950. Some of these


hang upon the continuance of our own regulations. Clause 9 makes financial provision required for purposes of the Bill, including an increase in ploughing grants.
In view of the highly legalistic nature of some of the Clauses with which I have been dealing, I myself read Clause 10 as a layman with great relief. There is no doubt as to its meaning. The need for it has fortunately come to an end and there can be no doubt what the future of the Isle of Man (Detention) Act, 1941, is. In fact, if I said any more in explanation of it it is quite obvious that the explanation would be far longer than the Clause.
Clause 11 revokes Section 3 of the Ships and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act, 1939, passed just before war broke out. This Section requires the sanction of the Minister of Civil Aviation to transactions in aircraft and parts of aircraft registered in the United Kingdom. It was enacted to prevent the weakening of the national war effort by the transference of aircraft from the British Register. It was not intended to put obstacles on ordinary commercial transactions between one British subject and another. In fact, the Section has not been strictly enforced since the war ended and it is now desired to repeal it and to provide for retrospective validation of postwar transactions, which probably in strict law would be rendered void by the Section. The date 15th August, 1945, chosen for the limitation of the retrospective effect, differentiates between transactions entered into before the end of hostilities and those entered into afterwards. This Measure, I understand, has had some quite unexpected influences on the validity of perfectly honourable and desirable transactions, and we desire that the whole matter should be cleared up. Here again, if there should be any desire to discuss this in Committee or to have the matter dealt with in any way we propose to have my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation present to help the House during the discussions.
The Bill is one which I hope will assist us in the task of getting rid of Defence Regulations which are no longer required. It will clarify the position with regard to the remainder and it does afford the House, in Committee, the opportunity of considering each of these Regulations if it so desires and of obtaining a justification

for their continuance. I suppose most of us and probably all of us would prefer that this form of legislation should be brought to an end as speedily as possible. I regret that it is not possible at this stage to ask that all these Defence Regulations should be wiped out. The enactments which we propose to continue are embodied in permanent legislative form in this Bill and as such we shall be able to discuss this matter with as much clarity as possible. I hope that the House will agree that we have endeavoured to limit the duration of the powers for which we are asking as much as possible and that we are bringing their further continuance firmly under the control of the House.

11.36 a.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman has, to use his own words, explained the Bill that is before us with the greatest possible clarity, but that does not disguise from other Members of the House the fact that it is a very complicated and technical matter. The right hon. Gentleman in his presentation of the Bill to the House has emulated the non-explosive quality of the gunpowder made in the neighbouring village to the town in which he was born. It is not an easy Bill on which to make a Second Reading speech because it is in accordance with the custom of this House that on the Second Reading we should discuss the principle of a Bill leaving the detailed stages for examination in Committee.
This Bill is an extremely miscellaneous collection. It repeals some regulations; others it extends for a year; others it extends to the end of 1950; and some it extends for ever. So even in questions of time the Bill has the greatest possible variety from zero to eternity. When we come to consider the real subject matter of the Bill, which is only to be found by looking at the Schedule, we see an equally miscellaneous and unrelated set of provisions which it is very difficult to string together in one Act. Hon. Members who look there will see that we pass in rapid transition from the Chief Constable of Cornwall to illegal gaming parties and from the infestation of vermin to the opening of cinematograph houses on Sundays.
Another difficulty is that the Bill itself is a meaningless document unless it is read with the Act of 1946 and with the


volume of Defence Regulations to which that Act and this Bill both refer. Even so, when one has armed oneself with all these documents the Bill itself remains obscure in parts because the last edition of the Defence Regulations published on 24th February, 1946, is out of date and it is very difficult to discover the precise force and form of the regulations as they subsist today. The outpouring of supplementary and amending legislation has been such that it has outrun the printing presses. We acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has done us a service by placing at our disposal in the Vote Office a roneod sheet which does tell us how many of these regulations have been repealed or altered. But the fact that he has had to do so shows, as I say, how far the outpouring of legislation has overtaken the powers of the printing press in the exercise of its mechanical but invaluable function.
How difficult it must be now even for practitioners of the law to know the shape and form of the law of England, and how hopeless it is for ordinary people nowadays to know when they are on the right or the wrong side of the law. In the words of the Prayer Book, the ordinary citizen can say:
Lord, who knoweth how oft he offendeth? 
One must remember that the regulations affected by this Bill form only a small part of the vast mass of subordinate legislation which now overhangs and presses upon the ordinary conduct of life. These regulations sprout out into innumerable orders made under them, and there is another hydra-like proliferation of regulations and orders under the Supplies and Services Acts. The result of all this is a tangled mass of inhibitory laws and controls which cannot even be printed in any collected or coherent form.
I appreciate the difficulties about printing and paper in these days, and I think the Government might consider one way of dealing with the problem. They might consider producing a small pamphlet containing a list of things which the ordinary man can do without the permission of some official. Such a list would not take up much paper or absorb much printing labour, and the cost of its production would not be great. It would have the effect of putting innocent people on their

guard. If a man proposed to build a house or to go for a ride on a motor cycle—two purposes which in themselves, are not obviously criminal or immoral—and he found that those actions were not listed in my proposed pamphlet, he could take steps to find out what forms he must fill and what obeisances he must make before he can go ahead with those actions.
I am conscious that this little Bill affords a very slender peg on which to hang a discourse on the whole subject of delegated legislation. Perhaps another occasion may arise for this. I am bound to say that the Bill before us has two good points. The first of these is in Part I of the First Schedule where there is a list of Defence Regulations whose final extinction is promised for the end of the year. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on this little bonfire of dead wood. It is a pity that he is just two days late for it to be absolutely topical. I wish it had been a bigger blaze, but, such as it is, I have no objection whatsoever to joining hands with the right hon. Gentleman and dancing round it.
The second good point is contained in Clause 3 which, as the right hon. Gentleman explained, gives effect to a statement made, I think, on 21st August last by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture about the ploughing-up grant of £4 an acre. There has been a good deal of unfortunate vacillation by the Government on this matter, but now that we have this Bill giving effect to the statement, I feel sure that the whole agricultural industry, both masters and men, will do their very utmost to speed the plough in the national interest at this time. I only hope that they will have the ploughshares, tackle and spare parts for their tractors to enable them to take full advantage of this provision.
In connection with agriculture, I am sorry to see that the Bill proposes to continue until the end of 1950 Regulation 52, which gives very wide powers to the Service authorities and the Ministry of Supply to enter upon land for any of their multifarious purposes. This power, which was quite necessary in war, is surely out of date after 2½ years of so-called peace. Great damage can be done to agricultural operations by the exercise of these powers, and I should have thought that by this time the Services and the Ministry of


Supply would have some plan or scheme as to their requirements for land so that there should be that settled continuity of tenure and freedom from interruption which are essential to the proper far-sighted development of any agricultural progress. The Bill proposes to continue many other regulations to which grave objection can be taken, but to refer to them all now would take much too long, and they, as the right hon. Gentleman said, can be dealt with seriatim at later stages of the Bill. In view of the good points to which I have drawn attention, I could not advise the House to reject this Bill on Second Reading, but of course I reserve to myself and to my hon. Friends all proper liberty of action at further stages of the Bill.

11.47 a.m.

Mr. Beechman: I should like for a very few minutes to join hands with the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) in dancing round this bonfire, because I am glad to see that some of these Defence Regulations have been thrown as fuel into the fire. I am glad to know that by the light of this bonfire there has been revealed material fit to be thrown into another bonfire as soon as possible. I would point out, however, that there is in this Bill matter which should be included in the bonfire now, although unhappily that is impossible. I do not want to make Committee points, but I would like to give one very pertinent example. It will be seen that in Part II, under Regulation 31A provision is made for the food, lodging and medical treatment of evacuees. Once again I want to remind the House that there are many people who were evacuated from their homes during the war still in evacuee areas, who wish to get back to their homes and who cannot do so.
I receive letter after letter—I have had some quite recently—from people who cannot get back to their homes. In St. Ives there is a hotel which could be very well used, especially nowadays, by people who want to take their holidays, but it is full of evacuees most of whom wish to return to their homes. In Penzance there are families who have written to me only recently saying that they wish to get back to their homes near London, but they are not allowed to do so. Only

two days ago I had a letter from a woman who had been turned out under process of law, no doubt correctly, and goodness knows where or how she is going to live. We are continuing this provision until the end of 1948, but I hope this does not mean that we are going to sit quiet and allow this process to be continued right through 1948, so that these people who have been parted from their homes and who have not been able to get back to them all this time, are left where they are without any hope of relief. There are in the far West of England traditional memories of the Spanish Armada; we repelled it, and, as far as I know, there are few vestiges of it left. But two years after the cessation of the last war, the Minister of Health is still fighting that war in the far West of this country. I do hope that the process will now cease.

11.50 a.m.

Sir John Mellor: I feel that the House ought to be a little on its guard in this matter because the Home Secretary, in his customary manner, has introduced this Measure with an air of sweet reasonableness, and rather in the manner of the family doctor, which, I think, does disguise the real potency of a number of its provisions. He has spoken of the necessity of dealing with certain matters in this way because of technical difficulties about amending certain Acts, and so on. I think we ought to have rather close examination of that, because it is a novel idea, to me, at any rate, that Parliament is impotent to amend any Act when the necessity for amendment is established. We really ought to look a little more closely, even on Second Reading, than we have yet done at some of the provisions of this Bill.
I notice that among the regulations to be continued for three years is Regulation 22, which concerns billeting. I do not think that that can be left only to be dealt with in the discussion in Committee on an Amendment to leave out Regulation 22 from the Schedule. This is a major matter which concerns, perhaps, not the liberty of the subject, but a liberty of almost equal importance, the liberty of the home. I do feel that next to the sanctity of the person is the sanctity of the home. In this Measure the Government are proposing to extend for three years the power of billeting,


which was one of the most disagreeable necessities of the war.
When one looks at the bound volume of Defence Regulations one finds that Regulation 22 appears—it is the first Regulation in Part II—under the heading, "Public Safety and Order." I should hardly have thought it right now to describe billeting as a matter of public safety or order. I suppose the Government have in mind that they desire to use powers of billeting in connection with the direction of labour. I should like to know whether that is the purpose or not. The menace of air raids and that kind of thing is now a matter, presumably, of the past; and the Government desire to retain the power to billet for an entirely different purpose altogether from that which was the purpose in the war—an entirely different purpose. Therefore, I do not think that this regulation ought to slip through without considerable comment even on Second Reading.
The change of purpose ought to be fully discussed, and if the Government do intend to use billeting in connection with the direction of labour we ought to have a statement on the subject from the Front Bench in this Debate. I am rather surprised that the Home Secretary said nothing about it, and that is why I feel that the House ought to be very much on its guard against the sweet atmosphere of reasonableness which he undoubtedly succeeded in creating. Before the Debate ends we ought to have a clear statement from the Government as to exactly how they intend to use this power to billet in the next few years, because the power is really of a most drastic order. The Minister of Health can delegate this power to anyone he pleases, and any person acting under such authority may serve upon an occupier of any premises a written notice
hereafter referred to as a billeting notice requiring the occupier of the premises to furnish therein"—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I think I must intervene here, because there is the principle of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. As the hon. Baronet recognises, we can leave to the Committee stage the details of the Schedules and the question of moving the deletion of regulations. I thought that the hon. Baronet was

drawing attention to what he thought was an important feature, without prejudging, so to speak, the discussion which, no doubt, will take place in Committee on an Amendment to leave out this regulation. If he goes further than that, and if we talk about every one of these regulations which the Bill continues, we shall break the tradition concerning the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.

Sir J. Mellor: With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to give very close consideration to the point before you make that your final Ruling. I thought that the Government could not introduce this provision—I think the Home Secretary said so—in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and that they had to introduce it in another way, and that this is that other way which we are now considering. I would, therefore, respectfully suggest that the principle should not apply. This is not an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is an Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill—

Mr. Speaker: I went carefully into this before. I think the same principle does apply with regard to the regulations being continued. The principle of the Bill is not in these individual regulations.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely, when a matter is of great importance, one is entitled to call attention to it on Second Reading. I did preface my observations by saying that I thought that this was an important point, because it did affect, not, perhaps, the liberty of the subject, but the freedom of the home, and was, therefore, of such far reaching importance that it was one that ought not to escape notice on Second Reading. I would respectfully submit, Sir, that where a matter is of such major importance, the mere fact that it can be dealt with in Committee, as matters always can, should not rule out discussion altogether on Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is not my view. I take it that Clause 1 (1, a and b) revokes some Acts and extends some regulations for a limited period. That is the principle of the Bill. What the Clause extends are details which are suitable for discussion at the Committee stage. While I was quite prepared to allow the hon. Baronet to draw attention to various matters which he thought should not be extended, I do not


think it is right that they should be discussed in detail on Second Reading.

Sir J. Mellor: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was only proceeding to draw attention to the extremely drastic powers involved in billeting. I do not know if I may continue to do so. Without the slightest intention of contravening your Ruling, I wonder if I may proceed to illustrate how drastic are the powers involved? I certainly would not wish to deal with the matter to the full extent to which I shall desire to do at the Committee stage. I would only point out, if I may, that the Minister has the power to enable anyone acting on his authority to require an occupier of premises to furnish, while the notice remains in force,
such accommodation by way of lodging or food or both, and either with or without attendance, as may be specified in the notice.
He may determine the price that is to be paid for such accommodation, and the penalty for infringement of a billeting notice is imprisonment not exceeding a term of three months, and if there is any dispute the matter is to be referred not to the courts, but to tribunals constituted by the Minister of Health.
There is a lot more which we shall desire to say, and I am gratful, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to say just that much in calling attention to this really monstrous provision—for it is monstrous if it is to be continued in time of peace for an entirely different purpose from that for which it was employed during the war, presumably to enable the Minister to carry out the direction of labour. I very much hope that before this Debate ends we shall at least hear from the Government Front Bench how they intend to use this power of billeting, and whether it is in connection with the direction of labour or is intended to serve other purposes as well. On matters of this sort the House should be fully informed of exactly what the Government have in mind in asking the House to extend for three years the power of billeting which the Government had during the war.

12.1 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The flickering bonfire of enthusiasm which greeted the introduction of this Bill seems by now to have been almost completely extinguished by the draughts of cold

water that has been poured on my right hon. Friend by hon. Members opposite. My case is quite different from that of those hon. Members who have already spoken. I started by being very critical of this Bill, particularly when I read in Clause 1 that it was proposed to bring to an end the Defence (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1940, which included very many desirable improvements in the practice of courts of summary jurisdiction. It was, therefore, with great relief that I noticed that in a later Clause it was proposed to continue in permanent form these very useful provisions, as a result of which it is possible for any aggrieved person to take procedings in relation to affiliation or maintenance orders in a court other than the court in which the proceedings had originally been initiated.
This means that at last, in some more or less permanent form, a wife, for example, who obtained a maintenance order in Newcastle but who has moved to London—and whose husband possibly has moved to London also—will now be able to take proceedings for variation or revocation of that order in a magistrate's court in London, without being put to the trouble and expense of travelling to the other end of the country for the purpose of obtaining justice in this particular instance. For this purpose alone I very much welcome this Bill, because it will extend in a more or less permanent form an administrative boon to large numbers of people who, if this particular Defence Regulation had not been continued, would have been subjected to a vast amount of needless trouble, worry, and expense.

12.4 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I should dislike to interrupt in any way the fairly even flow of congratulations which the Home Secretary has received this morning. He began his opening remarks with a statement with which almost every hon. Member on this side of the House would agree—that none of these regulations should be kept on longer than required. Without going into the details of any regulation, it is very easy to see that there is a great deal of difference of opinion between, say, myself and the Home Secretary, or between others and the Home Secretary, as to the real meaning of the word "required." Under this


Bill apparently certain things are required. An illustration has already been given in regard to billeting, where there is a great deal of difference between this side of the House and the Home Secretary. Thus, although this is a very nice start for a Bill of this sort, it does not take us a very long way towards agreement when we reach a further stage of the Bill.
With regard to Clause I, the Home Secretary said that under Subsection (1, a) a certain number of regulations are to go. There is no dispute about that as far as this side of the House is concerned. But then, when we come to paragraph (b), we have those which are to continue and in due course we shall want to know why it is necessary to continue certain regulations for another year. There are regulations involved in these two paragraphs which undoubtedly will have to be dealt with at a later stage. Turning now to paragraph (c), without criticising too closely the details given by the Home Secretary—who I see has left us thus early in the day, after having, I suppose, bidden others to keep fighting—the fact that according to the Schedule so many of these regulations are to continue till 1950 seems to me to be making some of them of an almost permanent nature. When regulations of this kind, which were begun during the war, are to go on until 1950, something like five years after the war, it seems to me to create a curious position, because it means we expect this emergency—and this is the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill—to continue as long as that. I should have thought it might have been possible to have amended that and continued them only until, say, 1949. I make that as a suggestion with which we can deal later.
Clause 2 makes permanent certain aspects of the Defence Regulations. We had a fairly full explanation of the Defence Regulations, but they are connected almost entirely with the Services, and, although I see an Under-Secretary on the Government Front Bench, I should have thought we might have had a rather full explanation from one of the Service Ministers. I am not casting any aspersions on anyone, but when this Clause comes up for discussion—and I noticed that the Home Secretary said the requisite Ministers would be here for the purpose

of replying—I hope we may have a fuller explanation than we have had up to the present moment, and that we shall have one of the senior Ministers to deal with this question. I trust that a note will be taken of that particular point.
The Home Secretary referred to Clause 3, which has a very wide scope and might almost be a Bill of itself. He passed over it, but it is a Clause which astonished me very much. But then, I am always astonished when something sensible is done by the Government. That is rare and occasional and has to be sought for very hard. I am glad to see that the position which I take up is fully shared by the Chief Patronage Secretary, but I will carry that reference no farther than drawing general attention to his smiling countenance and approval. On a matter of this kind, under which a basis for the development of agriculture as far as corn production is concerned is being laid down for a very considerable time, it is essential, and only right, that in the House this morning there should be very general approval expressed by those who really believe in it. I have no doubt that whoever winds up this Debate for the Opposition will have a good deal to say about this. It is not a matter which ought to be casually passed over. It concerns the ploughing up of land which is of great importance both inside and outside the agricultural industry. It is a provision which should be praised at this time, and I see no reason why we should not be glad that it is in this Bill. If this Bill did nothing else but this—and much of it is very bad—I should be inclined to vote for its Second Reading.
I now come to Clause 4, which deals with land drainage. I should like the Minister of Agriculture to take note of one important point. I want him to make certain that every facility is given to farmers and landowners to get ahead with these drainage schemes. I have come across instances where everything has been ready to get on with the work, which has been approved by one branch of a Department, but a vast amount of time has had to be spent in getting a permit from another branch of the same Department to carry out the operations. I can give an illustration in my own experience where that has happened. If


you get on with the work without getting the necessary permission, then there will be no grant at all. I should like the Government to look into this matter, because this is delaying drainage schemes. Clause 6 concerns demolition works. I do not think there is any need to go into this in any great detail, but in order to save the time of the House, which I am always trying to do if it is right, I ask how much demolition work there is still left to do? After all, this provision is extended until 1950, and if things like shelters are not to be demolished until five years after the end of the war, it is pretty slow work even for this Government. I should like to know precisely where the Government stand on this matter.
The Home Secretary referred to the repeal of the Isle of Man (Detention) Act, 1941, and said that this provision was clear. I can at least see eye to eye with him on this. I suppose he drafted the Clause himself, and did not let any lawyer do it for him. The Home Secretary explained very carefully that under Clause 11 there is to be a complete reorganisation in regard to the ability to sell aircraft abroad. I welcome this Clause, as I welcome anything which cuts down prohibitions on the sale of British goods abroad. At the present time we have a Department saying that certain goods can be sold abroad, while another Department says that it cannot be done. I have always protested against anything in a Bill which is retrospective, but in order to protect myself on this occasion, I would point out that this is a case where retrospective legislation is all to the good; it will stop a lot of unnecessary work being done by our legal friends.
I recognise that I should be on dangerous ground if I went into the Schedules in any great detail, and therefore I will mention only one matter, and that is the question of footpaths. It is laid down that there can only be a stopping up, or diversion, of highways for purposes of open-cast coal and generating stations. As this principle has been conceded in this connection, I want to ask the Government what other steps they are taking for the protection of footpaths. For example, the Army have seized great tracts of land on Dartmoor which they are shooting across, thereby closing the footpaths to the public. This is a question of

interest throughout the whole of the country, and it is a pity not to use this opportunity to extend the provision to protect all footpaths—it is in Order on Second Reading to refer to what is not in a Bill, as well as to what is contained in it. Therefore, I think it is a pity, as this Measure deals with so many subjects that it does not lay down the rights of the Service Departments in regard to the land they have seized all over the country As it is now over two years since the end of the war, this would be a suitable occasion to extend this principle, which in a sense is already contained in the Bill. The rights of the Service Departments in this matter of footpaths and so forth should certainly be laid down. I should like it laid down that where they have seized good farms, such as the Co-operative farms in Plymouth, they shall not continue to hold that land.
Although this Bill goes a short way towards eliminating certain matters, it is not a really important Measure in respect of which the Home Secretary can pat himself on the back—I notice that he has now left us to get on with it. The provision that the chief constable of Cornwall shall no longer be left alone to deal with the affairs of the Scilly Isles will not cause an awful lot of trouble. On the other hand, there are numerous regulations, about which none of us has the haziest idea, not dealt with under this Bill. It would have been better to have referred to this Bill as a Bill to continue many of the laws, but for my part I wish that it had been far shorter and had simply cut out most of the regulations which are now proposed to be carried on for another three years. In other words, it is not a matter of what is right, or what the nation desires; it is a question of what the Home Secretary desires. I am sorry that I have had to introduce into the Debate a note not quite in harmony with what has already been said, but I was rather stirred by a speech from the opposite side of the House. I hope that a lot of this Bill will be cut out in the Committee stage. Incidentally, I noted that the Home Secretary was careful not to say whether the Committee stage would be taken on the Floor of the House, or upstairs. That is why I said rather more than I otherwise should have done, because if it goes upstairs I shall not have any chance of dealing with it there.

12.21 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This Debate has been conducted in an atmosphere of sweet harmony and good temper, and I should be the last to wish to interfere with that in any degree. I was much interested in the Home Secretary's observation that he had been able to reach a definite conclusion as to the time which each one of the Defence Regulations affected by this Measure should last. If the right hon. Gentleman were here I would like to congratulate him on the ability which he professed to possess, and, at the same time, to regret that he did not disclose to us the reasons which led him to say why one regulation should be brought to an end now, while others should last until 31st December, 1948, others until 10th December, 1950, and others should be made permanent.
I hope I shall not get on to thin ice in referring to the Schedules, but I must confess that when I look at them it is very difficult indeed to determine the principle on which the right hon. Gentleman has acted in separating these Defence Regulations. He said—and I welcome it—that on the Committee stage of this Bill there will be present on the Government Front Bench Ministers from each of the Departments affected by each regulation. That assurance was clear and unequivocal and, having been made, it does not make it necessary for me to deal in any great detail with the Defence Regulations. But does that mean—and the Under-Secretary must answer this question—that in view of that undertaking the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of this House? It should be. In view of the new Standing Orders we passed recently, if that course is not adopted it would appear that the Standing Committee which would have to deal with this Bill, if it were sent upstairs, would on the Government side be packed with Front Benchers, and that back benchers would be absent. I am sure that the Patronage Secretary would think it wrong to take the Government Front Bench upstairs, thereby depriving back benchers of the opportunity of criticising these Defence Regulations. But, in all seriousness, we must have a definite reply to the question I have just asked.
I think the language which my right hon. Friend used about the First Schedule was rather exaggerated. It would not warm anyone, even the Minister of Fuel

and Power. When we look through the Defence Regulations which are not to be continued we see that at least six, and may be more, are not to be continued because they are to be made permanent. Looking at Part II of the First Schedule I should like to know why Regulation 31 A, dealing with the provision of food, lodging, and medical treatment for evacuees, should not end now? Why is it necessary that this regulation should continue until 31st December, 1948? For what reasons has the Home Secretary put that Defence Regulation in that category?
There is another regulation of which I have more knowledge—Regulation 13 of the Defence (Administration of Justice) Regulations, 1940. That regulation deprives a man charged with treason or felony the right of peremptory challenge of his jury. He did not have to give a reason; he could simply challenge. That is one of the oldest rights that a man on trial in this country possesses. It was abandoned during the war. Why should not that regulation go now? What is the reason for saying that that regulation, depriving a man of that right, should remain, not permanently, or until 1950, but until 31st December, 1948? Perhaps we shall hear from the Under-Secretary the real reason why the Home Office think that the right of peremptory challenge, although not permanently abolished, should be suspended for another year.
When we come to Part III of the First Schedule I can tell the Under-Secretary that we shall require a case to be made out for the revision of each of these regulations when we get to the Committee stage. I hope that ample time will be given for that. I can understand the Government wanting to keep Regulation 2BA, dealing with the control of explosives, in force until 1950, beyond their insurable life, but a strong case will require to be made out for the retention of Regulation 12, which prescribes public access to wide areas of the country. The right hon. Gentleman made a reference to Regulation 16. I myself think it is wrong that the Minister of Fuel and Power should have the power to stop up highways for the purpose of opencast coal working, or constructing or extending electricity generating stations. We have seen, in recent controversy, the reasons why that should not be left to the Minister of Fuel and Power.
The right person to deal with questions of stopping up the highways, to be charged with authority in that respect, is not the Minister of Fuel and Power, but the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Wide powers to stop up highways were given to the Ministry of Transport under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. Wide powers already exist in other legislation, and I think this House ought to be particularly careful before granting any further extensions of such powers. I do not propose to say any more about Regulation 16, other than that we shall want to go into it very thoroughly when the time comes.
I only wish to refer to one other regulation in Part III—Regulation 20AB which deals with the retention of identity cards. Why is it necessary to keep identity cards going until 1950? Ought that not, if it is to be a permanent part of our code, be the subject of a separate Bill? Is there to be any really definite undertaking in 1950 that the system of identity cards will cease? The House must remember that under this Bill there is power to carry on these regulations by an Address to both Houses of Parliament, and although the Home Secretary may have excellent reasons for saying that particular regulations shall not end in 1948 but end in 1950, I think those reasons should be told to us, and that the House should have an opportunity of considering the matter.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) referred in some detail to Regulation 22. It is a most important regulation. I do not propose to say a word about the content of the regulation, but we are entitled to ask why the Home Secretary today said that he was able to conclude that that regulation should go among those lasting until 1950. Is the retention of that regulation due to the failure of His Majesty's Government's housing programme? Is it retained merely to secure accommodation for people who are to be directed away from their homes to distant parts of the country? Although we cannot go into details on that, we ought, at least, to be told his reasons why that regulation is to be retained if the Government have their way, for so long.
I would like to say a few words about the Second Schedule. I think that it is unfortunate that legislation which is per-

manent should be included in a Bill entitled "Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions)". It is particularly unfortunate that legislation which deals with Army, Navy and Air Force matters should not be embodied in one code. It is much harder to find when it is tucked away in the Schedules of Bills entitled such as this. At first sight, I can see no reason why the passages in the Second Schedule dealing with the Navy, Army and Air Force should not be inserted respectively in the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act and the Air Force Annual Act.
With regard to the provision in that Schedule for dealing with maintenance and affiliation orders, I think that system has proved to be satisfactory, subject to my observation that I should prefer to see it dealt with in another Measure, where one can put one's finger on it as a lawyer much more easily than one can when it is tucked away in the Schedule, and subject to the point that I am a little doubtful about what is required under these regulations by way of pleading from the complainant. On page 15 one sees with regard to the complaint that no action will be taken unless a summary is given of the nature of the evidence, the occupation and name and address of the complainant and the occupation and name and address of any other person proposed to be called as a witness. That struck me as a somewhat novel procedure which indicates a tendency for more forms, and I cannot see, at the moment, any advantage in it.
Representing, as I do, a constituency in which agriculture is actively pursued I, of course, welcome the parts dealing with the ploughing-up of grass. I would welcome them much more strongly if, in my part of the world, there had been anything like an adequate supply of ploughshares to enable farmers to get on with their work, and far more, too, if there was in fact any priority at all given by the Government towards the manufacture of agricultural machinery and the spare parts which are so urgently required. With regard to the other provisions, I will not say very much at this stage. This is really a Bill which is not correctly entitled. It is a Bill which contains, as my right hon. Friend has said, two good points, and in the hope that we can make it a much better Bill in the


course of the Committee stage, we on this side of the House are not opposing its passage today.

12.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I think that it will gratify everybody on this side of the House that this Bill, which is the successor of a Bill of some 18 months ago which raised a good deal of controversy should have been so well and reasonably received. There were one or two preliminary rumblings which led me to fear that other issues, which, in my submission, would have been inappropriate, would be raised, but neither the right hon. Gentleman who opened for the Opposition nor any other speakers have seen fit to raise anything of a highly controversial nature, and I certainly do not propose to spoil that record now.
I am particularly glad that almost every speaker has approved the agricultural provisions which have been put into this Bill. I do not think that I need, at this stage, say any more about those particular Clauses. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) did not appear to be very satisfied with the explanation which has so far been given as to why each of these regulations and enactments is being continued for the precise period for which it is now proposed to be continued. That is a matter which can only be properly dealt with by going through the whole of the Schedules and Clauses one by one and giving the reason in each case. I do not want, at this stage, to take up the time of the House in anything approaching such a procedure, even if it were in Order, but perhaps I may attempt to place them shortly in categories in a way which may be helpful.
First of all, a very high proportion of the regulations, and some enactments as well, are to expire normally by the end of this year, in accordance with the 1946 Act. At the other extreme, there are a number of provisions which it is felt should become the permanent law of the land. These are divided into two categories; there are those within the scope of immediately projected legislation, which it is hoped to bring before the House very shortly, or which, in some cases, will be covered by the provisions of existing legis-

lation, such as the National Health Service Act, when it comes into force. These are, therefore, only being kept on just long enough to ensure continuity until the provisions under these Acts take effect, and consequently they appear in the second part of the First Schedule, to continue to the end of 1948. The other enactments which it is thought should become permanent are ones which are in themselves of minor importance and believed not to be controversial, and which are not covered by any legislation immediately projected. It is convenient to make them permanent laws at once in this Bill, and, therefore, they appear in the Second Schedule.
Between these two extremes, the enactments that can go at once and those we propose to make permanent, there is an intermediary class, the proper duration of which it is much more difficult to assess. Generally speaking, these are the ones which fall within Part III of the First Schedule in respect of which the date 10th December, 1950, has been chosen. There are varying reasons why these regulations—they are mostly regulations—are to go on until 1950. In many of them, it is because the conditions to which they apply are temporary in their nature but one cannot quite say how long they will go on. An example of that would, for instance, be any regulation affecting food or clothes rationing. That would apply, in particular, to Regulation 20AB which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a moment ago with regard to identity cards. I think that that regulation only makes minor administrative amendments to the law, but I do not think it would be disputed that some form of national registration is likely to be necessary so long as it is also necessary to maintain rationing of various kinds.
There are others due to shortage of labour, or, in some cases, of paper. One or two regulations exempted certain undertakings from publishing frequent and voluminous reports; those were introduced in wartime, and the need for economy still seems to exist. In this category also comes Regulation 31A, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members—the one including provisions for evacuees. It is, unfortunately, the case that there are still some unaccompanied children for whom provision has to be made.

Mr. Beechman: Is the Minister aware that they are not really unaccompanied children; those to whom I was referring are adults? There are children, too, but there are adults in the evacuee areas who are being paid for as evacuees.

Mr. Younger: I believe there are others besides children, although I am informed that the children are the main continuing problem. Maybe, it is possible to criticise the fact that these people still remain and that it has not yet been possible to send them all back to their homes. However, that would, perhaps, be for discussion at another time. The fact is that the problem still exists, and is one which obviously has to be handled so long as it exists. My right hon. Friend thinks it reasonable that this should continue for a time. There are other matters of a purely temporary nature, particularly regulations in Part III of the Schedule, relating to such matters as the care of mental defectives, where the prewar position has not yet been fully re-established, but I do not think there would be anything controversial about regulations of that type.
There is another category which it is proposed to continue until 1950–matters where it may well be that some major decision embodying some kind of a permanent enactment will eventually have to be considered by this House. But they are matters which are, to some extent, controversial, and which should certainly not be decided and put on a permanent basis too hastily. The sort of provision I have in mind is the one mentioned in Clause 5 (2) (a) relating to the sugar industry. It may be that long-term arrangements might have to be made for that industry, but it would obviously take time to work out what should be the long-term arrangement, and I do not think the House would like to have an arrangement of that kind simply embodied as one of a number of miscellaneous provisions in this Bill. Therefore, it is considered that the temporary provision at present in force should be continued until the proper Measure is brought forward. The same applies under the Defence Regulations in connection with agriculture and fisheries, with regard to marketing arrangements and the white fish industry in particular, where prewar provisions were suspended, and where it will obviously be necessary to devise some long-term scheme.
Criticism has been levelled at the fact

that the date, 10th December, 1950, should have been chosen. The reasons for the choice of that date are, firstly, that it seems clear that these regulations will, in the great majority of cases, have to be continued for longer than a year, and it is not possible to say at this stage just how much longer than a year. But it is considered that the end of 1948 would not be an appropriate date for this purpose. As we all know, in December, 1950, the whole question of the ultimate fate of Defence Regulations and other wartime enactments is likely to come up, and must come up, under the Supplies and Services—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to put one Question? Why is it required, or thought necessary, to retain the power to billet people in other people's houses until 1950?

Mr. Younger: I will come to that in a moment. If I may just finish the point I was on, I think it will be for the convenience of the House that the whole of this problem should be reviewed at the same time. There is, as has been already stated, power under the previous Act and under this Bill to revoke any of these orders earlier than the date mentioned, should it prove possible to do so. As I think the House knows, some have already been revoked before the time when they would have had to be revoked under the 1946 Act. I can assure the House that it will be the practice of the Government to revoke any particular order at the earliest possible date. But it seems that the time for another review—and the House is already having its second review within 18 months—could well be postponed until the whole problem can finally be dealt with once and for all. It is felt that that would certainly promote simplicity which, if I correctly understood hon. Members opposite, which is one of the objects which they desire to attain.
This is, of course, a complicated Bill. I have tried to mention the various categories, and to make it as clear as I can, but it is not, as the right hon. Gentleman said, an easy Bill on which to make a Second Reading speech and to discern underlying principles. But I do not think the effect of the Bill is quite as complicated as some people make out. By


the end of next year, the whole of Part 1 of Schedule I will have gone; Part II will either have gone, or the provisions will have been incorporated in separate legislation under particular headings; and Clause 5 (1) and the enactments under it will also have gone. Moreover, the permanent enactments will have become the law of the land. There will be nothing more provisional about them. Although, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, it is sometimes difficult, even for lawyers, to pick out from a miscellaneous Bill all the different points included under it, I think that is a criticism which applies to a great deal of English law, and not merely to this Bill. It is really very little more difficult for a lawyer to pick out the Amendments under a Bill of this kind than it is to find his way through, say, the Rent Restrictions or Workmen's Compensation legislation. Eventually, the only matters which will still remain temporary at the end of 1948 will be those in Part III of the First Schedule and under Clauses 4, 5 and 6, and they are not really so numerous or so complicated as to make the thing impossible to follow.
I think it would also be quite misleading to imply, as some hon. Members have implied that the regulations which are being kept in force are, by their nature, unnecessarily oppressive, or even that they all give an enhanced power to the Executive. That was, of course, true of many regulations passed during the war, and it may be true, to a limited extent, of some of the provisions which fall to be continued under this Bill. But it is not a general accusation which can be made. There are, for instance, just as many regulations designed purely for the protection of the public. To single out a couple of examples, there is Regulation 60CC which is designed to protect Post Office savings, and to ensure that no employee of the Post Office can be obliged to pay out money until he is satisfied about the identity of the applicant. That is a type of thing that nobody could conceivably say was an additional power to the Executive.

Sir J. Mellor: That is for the protection of the Post Office, not of the depositor.

Mr. Younger: In either case it is for the protection of the public. Certainly there is nothing in any degree oppressive, and no penalties are involved. Although

one has to produce a document, there is no penalty for not being able to do so, one is merely obliged to give satisfactory evidence of identity. I could give a dozen examples of that kind to show that it would be quite misleading, either in respect of Defence Regulations which are temporary, or those which are permanent to suggest that we were continuing regulations which only provided for wartime conditions.
Particularly I would mention Defence Regulation 22, which was the subject of much discussion last year. No one likes this Regulation, and I think my right hon. Friend will have no complaint that reference has been made to a point of principle being involved in the continuation of billeting. For a short time, however, this provision is required, though not so long as to the end of 1950. For a short time it may be required for the billeting of certain unaccompanied children in connection with Regulation 31A. But the need which is likely to continue longer than that is one which I know is not at all popular, even with the people who benefit by it. That is the need to billet civil servants. There is no doubt at all that until it is possible to re-concentrate such public offices as are to be re-concentrated, it is essential that in certain areas billeting orders should remain in force. I was asked whether this was intended for use in conection with the Control of Engagement Order. I am assured that that is not the case.

Sir J. Mellor: I do not see how it can be used in connection with the Control of Engagement Order, but I asked whether it could be used in connection with the direction of labour.

Mr. Younger: I am sorry, I should have said the direction of labour, and I am assured that there is no intention whatever of using it in that connection. Perhaps at this stage the House will be satisfied with that assurance, because the regulation will be fully discussed on the Committee stage.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the hon. Gentleman say quite clearly that the use of this regulation will be limited in all cases to the benefit of children and civil servants, and not for the benefit of other people?

Mr. Younger: I could hardly give such a categorical assurance but those are the


principal purposes for which the regulation is required. I am bound to say I do not know of any other type of case in which it is alleged to have been oppressively used in the past, and I do not think I should be asked to give a categorical assurance that it will not be used for any other type of case. Other Bills are projected which will give certain powers to provide accommodation for children, which will make the provision in that respect unnecessary.

There is the question of the powers under Regulation 52, "Use of Land for Purposes of H.M. Forces." The fact is that no new order has been made for a considerable time. The need for this regulation to continue is to retain the validity of orders already made, pending a final settlement of the needs of the Armed Forces. This would not be the proper occasion to discuss in detail what the needs of the Armed Forces would be. Obviously that is a matter which requires very careful consideration before it is to be finalised. My right hon. Friend hopes that decisions will be reached at the earliest possible moment but it is impossible to say just when decisions will be finalised.

Mr. C. Williams: Would it be possible at some stage of the Bill to have a complete picture of what are the real needs of the Armed Forces? This has been going on for two years now and has been causing a lot of dissatisfaction.

Mr. Younger: I think it would be for you Sir, or for the Chairman of the relevant Committee to say whether the whole of that problem can be appropriately discussed on the Bill. Of course there will be a discussion of those aspects of the problem which fall within the scope of the Bill on the Committee stage.
On the question of whether the Committee stage of the Bill is to be taken on the Floor of the House I think the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) will agree that that is not a question I can answer here and now. No doubt his remarks, which have been noted, will be fully considered, and there will be an opportunity of discussing them, but it is hardly a question for me to answer.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but surely he can get guidance from his

neighbour on the Front Bench. I fail to see how the promise of the Home Secretary that the Ministers will be present to deal with every regulation on the Committee stage can be honoured unless the Committee stage is taken on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Younger: I think I can confirm the assurance that Ministers will be present and the question of how to ensure that is a matter which can be discussed, perhaps, on another occasion.
The very complicated nature of this Bill is really due to the complications of the position from which we are passing, namely, the end of the war, when hundreds of regulations of a differing nature were imposed for differing purposes, some military, some economic and some legal. Some were inappropriate for dealing with the position after the war, and others were appropriate only to that position. It is quite obvious as a matter of simple administration that these regulations should be revoked at differing dates, and it is the complication of the position from which we are departing, rather than the ultimate position we shall reach, which causes the complications of this Bill. The fact that we have made so many categories in this Bill illustrates the care with which His Majesty's Government have examined every regulation. The Bill could have been simplified if the regulations were more roughly classified, without regard to the period of time for which they will be needed. I think it will be recognised that the requirements of the House in this matter have been reasonably met.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Richard Adams.]

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY LAWS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir BASIL NEVEN-SPENCE in the Chair.]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the Defence Regulations continued in force by the Emergency Laws (Transitional


Provisions) Act, 1946, and with respect to certain emergency and temporary enactments extended by or contained in that Act, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown in consequence of the passing of the said Act of the present Session, and any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act in any sums authorised or required by any other enactment to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Adams.]

1.1 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: I am glad to have the opportunity today to bring to the attention of the House a subject of great importance to the industrial prosperity of our country—the subject of railway transport operations. I have often thought that the House could quite well devote a complete day to the discussion of problems arising in the railway transport industry. Therefore, I welcome the fact that we have been able to start our discussion of this subject fairly early this afternoon. I want to take as the text for my remarks a statement, which appeared in the "Financial Times," on 20th October, by the transport correspondent. This statement was headed:
Slower tempo of railway movements.
The statement went on:
Long before the Act—
that is, the Transport Act—
was passed a creeping paralysis had set in and the machine began to slow down. That process has continued;, the wheels are being turned by habit rather than by conscious will and direction.
What I shall say in the course of my remarks will apply to the four main line railway companies in particular. The causes of our present transport difficulties as far as the railways are concerned have been given as a shortage of locomotives, shortage of wagons and arrears of maintenance and repairs. I take the view that these are not main causes but only contributory causes. If there is a shortage of locomotives and wagons, it is not so much a numerical shortage as an artificial shortage created by lower standards of

traffic operations. In other words, wagons are held far too long under load, and the greater expenditure of engine hours, so far as locomotives are concerned is a contributory cause of the artificial shortage. I hope to show in the course of my remarks that deterioration in standards of management, and lower standards of discipline amongst the staff, creating as they do an absence of effective co-operation between the two, are also serious causes of the slow-down of railway movements.
First, let me examine the position of locomotives. It has been said that there is a shortage. In June, 1938, there were 16,077 locomotives available, excluding those under repair. In June, 1947, there were 16,611 locomotives available for traffic, excluding those under repair. In other words, there are 534 more locomotives available in 1947 than there were in 1938, despite the fact that the volume of traffic carried was less in 1947 than it was in 1938, which to some extent proves my contention that it is not so much a numerical shortage of locomotives which is a contributory cause of bad operations. It has been said that these figures are not really comparable, but I do not accept that because no reason has been given why those figures should not be regarded as comparable. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will know that there is some slight discrepancy in the figures which come from his Department from time to time, and which his Department get, I understand, from the railway companies. I wish to give particulars of figures which appear in the yearly returns of the Ministry, which to some extent confirm those figures which I have already given, and which are not supposed to be comparable. The Statistical Committee of the Railway Executive Committee have recently given the figures of locomotives available to traffic, excluding those under repair, as being 18,469 in 1938 and 18,752 in 1946, an increase of 283 locomotives in 1946, as compared with 1938. They show, as I have already said, more locomotives available with traffic less in volume than in 1938.
What really is wrong in regard to this alleged shortage of locomotives? My contention is that there is far too great a wastage of engine power, arising very largely from a deterioration in standards of operation, creating delays of a character which were unknown prior to


1939. I can only illustrate this by giving some figures, of which I hope the House will approve. In 1938, engine hours engaged in freight train running, excluding shunting operations, numbered 14,598,000. In 1946, the number had risen to 17,887,000, or, in other words, an increase of engine-hours for freight trains in operation of 22.5 per cent. Taking into consideration the fact that less traffic is passing in 1947 than in 1938, it really means that engine hours engaged in traffic movements have increased by 24 per cent. over what they were in 1938. That increased expenditure of engine hours creates an artificial numerical shortage of locomotives.
There is another important factor in regard to passenger trains. Only 29.6 per cent. of our express trains run to time, a very low percentage; 37 per cent. of them run over 30 minutes late. Only 66 per cent. of the local trains run to time. These considerable delays and bad time-keeping of both passenger and freight trains seriously reduce the availability of locomotives and wagons for service. I take the view that we must look not so much to a numerical increase in locomotives and wagons as to an improvement in the standard of operation. Let me take the question of wagons. The number of wagons available in 1938, excluding those under repair, was 1,194,800. In 1947 the number was 1,020,760. In other words, there were 174,040 fewer wagons in operation in 1947 than there were in 1938. But the numerical quantity of wagons must have some relationship to the volume of traffic which originates on the railway. More traffic will demand more wagons: less traffic will demand fewer wagons. When we look at the volume of traffic conveyed by the railways in the comparable years of 1939 and 1947 we find that there has been quite a fair reduction in the total volume carried. In 1939, for instance, 288,339,000 tons of freight traffic were conveyed. That figure is a fairly low average over the years 1939 to 1945. On the basis of traffic which has already passed this year, the figure for 1947 will be somewhere in the region of 247,130,000 tons. That estimate is based upon the traffic passing between January and August of this year.
On those figures, there has been a drop of 41,209,000 tons in freight-train traffic

originating on the railways, or a fall of approximately 15 per cent. The weekly averages of freight-train traffic carried has fallen from 5.47 million tons in 1939 to 4.75 million tons, a reduction of 13 per cent. I want to confirm that further by giving the figures for estimated ton-miles which is a formula devised to measure the form and density of railway traffic. In 1944 the weekly average of estimated ton-miles was 470 million. In 1947 they had dropped to 378 million. That was a reduction of 19 per cent.
What is the position? It is admitted that 16 per cent. of our wagons are out of service for repair. There is no question but that that is a very high percentage. Side by side with that we must face the fact that there is a 15 per cent. reduction in the demand for wagons through reduced traffic originating on the railways so that, to some extent one balances the other. Again, there have been other factors which have contributed to the improved use of wagon capacity. For instance, the increased tonnage capacity of wagons, comparing 1946 with 1938, means that 615,000 tons more are carried in the existing total stock. That means that the average tons per wagon conveyed have increased from 12.01 to 12.84. That represents a very considerable economy in operation. Also, private owners' wagons have been requisitioned. The mere fact of requisitioning has meant their more economical use and, as a consequence, there has been less empty haulage. In turn, that has saved engine power.
Therefore, I would sum up on this point as follows: Freight train tonnages are down by 15 per cent. and the increased tonnage capacity of wagons and more economical use of private owners' wagons by requisitioning, offsets the large number of wagons under repair. The problem is largely due to deterioration in the control of traffic movements which causes delay of an abnormal character in train working. If we could effect a 50 per cent. improvement in the time-keeping of goods and passenger trains, we should be able to provide my right hon. Friend with all the additional locomotive and wagon strength which he requires to bring transport operations up to their maximum point of requirement for this winter. It is very important to realise the effect that train delays and reduced standards of operation are having upon the position as it exists at present.
How can we improve traffic movements and operations? First, there must be speedier repairs to locomotives and wagons. In this matter, railway workshops play a very important part. In far too many of them ancient tools and out of date systems are used, but in a few the conveyor belt system has been adopted for the repair of locomotives as well as wagons. Where that system is in operation, the time that locomotives are out of service awaiting repair has been reduced to one third. It is important that the Minister should ensure that the conveyor belt system is introduced as rapidly as possible into the principle railway workshops of the country. By the extension of this system we can reduce considerably the amount of time during which locomotives are out of service awaiting repair. There is a shortage of component parts for small running repair sheds.
Another important factor is the need to convert locomotives to oil burning. This is very important. The use of oil effects considerable economies, and conversion would bring about considerable improvement in running times. Last year the Minister asked railway companies to convert 1,217 locomotives from steam to oil burning. He estimated that that alone would save one million tons of coal a year. How many have been converted during the past 12 months? Only 34. The explanation which has been given, and which may be correct, is that there is a bottleneck in the supply of equipment for storage installation. I would like the Minister to look into that matter. If it is true, I hope that he will take steps to remove the bottleneck. Not only is it important that we should export coal to pay for our food, but also it is in the interest of improved traffic operation that we should convert the maximum number of locomotives from coal to oil burning. The "Railway Gazette," on 3rd October, in reference to this question, said:
It seems unlikely that the Minister's expectations of coal economy from this source will be realised during the coming winter, if indeed they ever are.
I hope the Minister will not take such a pessimistic view as that.
Another important factor to which attention should be given is the extension of the automatic train control apparatus. This would reduce delays considerably in

times of bad visibility. We have read in our newspapers this morning of a number of accidents arising from fog. I hope the Minister will inquire into this matter and see to what extent those accidents might have been avoided had the automatic train control system been in operation. As a matter of fact, several accidents that have occurred in times gone by could have been avoided had this automatic train control system been introduced. Apart from its tendency to reduce accidents, it assists considerably in maintaining time during bad visibility in fog and falling snow, and it gives greater assurance to the driver and fireman, for they know, as they pass over from section to section, the exact position of the signals.
Then there is admittedly a shortage of skilled staff. One of the shortages arises from housing. I have in my constituency one of the principal locomotive depots and marshalling yards of the Great Western Railway, situated at Old Oak Common, which services Paddington Station. From time to time highly skilled men are transferred from other parts of the country to Old Oak Common and, when they get there, there are no houses for them. There at present you will find 250 skilled railway men living like tramps and gypsies in railway coaches, drivers and firemen, trainmen and others, and many of them have been there for periods up to two years and more, living apart from their wives, who are down in the country somewhere while they are up here in lodgings. There they are, without any provision being made for housing accommodation.
What makes the problem worse than ever is the fact that the Great Western Railway Housing Association owns, not far away from Old Oak Common, sufficient land on which to build 150 houses. The Housing Association has tried to get the consent of the Ealing Borough Council to the development of a housing scheme there to house some of these railwaymen at Old Oak Common, but the Council refuses to give consent. Now that matter has been referred to my right hon. Friend to deal with, and I believe he is taking some interest in this question. Unless, however, he and the Minister of Health do something in the matter, there is no possibility whatever of the Ealing Borough Council agreeing to the G.W.R. Housing Association develop-


ing this land for housing purposes. It is vital that we should provide these skilled men with housing accommodation.
I could give other cases throughout the railway system, but I have quoted Old Oak Common merely as an instance of the effect which the acute shortage of housing is having upon the transfer of skilled staff from one point to another. A skilled man is required at one point. He has to be taken from another point, but he will not go there unless he can get a house or, if he does go there, he becomes so disgruntled and discontented because he cannot get a house that he does not give the best he should. Therefore, the provision of housing accommodation for railwaymen at key centres is just as important as the provision of houses for agricultural workers, miners and others, and I hope the Minister will be able to give some attention to that too.
I mentioned just now the breakdown of standards of discipline, and I did so because the "Railway Review," which is the official organ of the National Union of Railwaymen, of which I have the honour to be a member, has been giving a great deal of publicity to this question for some time. To convey to the House more clearly their view of this matter, I will give a brief quotation from the "Railway Review" of 10th October. It was written by a man who has given a lifetime of service to the railway company and he says:
To those of us who have spent many years in the railway service it is a matter of grave concern and some alarm that the present unsatisfactory standard of efficiency obtains.
While there were many defects in the service at the disposal of the country prior to 1939, today the standard of efficiency is, unfortunately, much lower. Some of the factors contributing to this are beyond the control of the staff.
This period of full employment has, however, brought with it its own problems, and one of them is how to maintain some reasonable degree of discipline in the service under the changed circumstances.
The absenteeism, lateness on duty, and refusals to carry out instructions, cannot be ignored without detrimental effects to everyone concerned. It is true these irregularities are practised for the most part by the younger members of the staff.
I would like the House to take note of that, because there is a solid core of railwaymen who are putting their backs into this job of transport, and the indiscipline lies at the door mainly of the younger

members of the staff. The article goes on to say:
The perpetrators of similar irregularities in prewar days would have been sacked, but today the railway management take no notice. This may be easy, but it entirely undermines the authority of those charged with the responsibility of administration It must be obvious that if the present procedure continues, any hope of an efficient national railway service in the future can be abandoned. It is essential that the trouble be fairly and squarely faced at the earliest possible moment in order that a remedy may be applied.
How does this lack of discipline arise? It started during the war period when a lot of people were directed into the railway industry who did not want to go there. I have always taken the view that if you force a person to do something he does not want, he just does not pull his weight. There were some good people drafted into the railways during the war, but there was a fair percentage of people pushed in who did not want to stay and consequently, in common parlance, they started playing up. That sort of thing has tended to grow and the railway managements have made things worse by the too frequent use of the disciplinary machinery for trivial cases. This disciplinary machinery, agreed by the railway trade anions and the railway managements, used to function excellently. Today, however, it has been brought into disrepute simply because the management has made too frequent use of it for trivial cases. They should have given their lower officials greater power to deal with matters of this kind, rather than to invoke this machinery for small cases. There is, too, a lack of confidence in the management on the part of many members of the railway staff. To illustrate my point let me give a quotation from a letter in the "Railway Review" of 24th October written by a railwayman. He says:
I work in a large colliery and observe an amount of traffic left over each night; the colliery ceases work at 10 p.m. and no trains are attaching traffic after that time until 8.30 a.m. next morning—ten and a half hours' delay after the traffic is handed over. The amount left over varies from 50 loads—on occasions being as high as 200 loads. … If better working cannot be arranged than this slow method, it seems to me, an overhaul of the management officials is absolutely essential, for that is where the real responsibility lies. This state of affairs existing at the moment will grow worse as the wintry weather comes on, so it would be better to 'clear the lines' now than try to remove a 'block' of transport later on. Not much use


asking miners to work overtime if the coal remains standing on colliery sidings for hours.

Mr. McAdam: That particular point arises out of a question I recently put to the Minister of Fuel and Power as to the reason why the coal is not lifted from the colliery sidings during the hours of darkness, and the answer was because the colliery companies provide no lighting arrangements.

Mr. Sparks: That may be the explanation, but I was reading a letter in which the writer claims that the management is to blame for this delay. If there is no lighting, then, in my view, lighting should be provided, because after all is said and done, to keep 200 trucks of coal standing for 10½ hours after they are ready is rather a serious delay. In those 10½ hours the traffic could have been moved to its destination, and look at the number of wagons we would be saving by a more speedy conveyance of the coal as soon as it is laid on.

Mr. McAdam: Will the hon. Member concede the point that if the lighting arrangements are not provided by the National Coal Board, then the responsibility is on the Board and not on the railway companies?

Mr. Sparks: I do not know. This writer does not say anything like that, but he says he works in a large colliery and I should assume that he knows what he is talking about. My hon. Friend the Member for North Salford (Mr. McAdam) says it is due to the lack of lighting. It may be, but if it is lack of lighting, provision should be made for lighting. I assume the man who wrote this letter knows what he is talking about and I do not see why he should have drawn attention to it if it is impossible to move the coal from the colliery siding. I leave it at that, but I am merely quoting from this letter which shows that there is a lack of confidence in the management. They do not think that the management is standing up to the job as it should do.
That again is emphasised by another railwayman, who, in the "Railway Review" of 10th October, made a contribution under the heading of "A Call to Railway Managers" and he said:
In managerial circles at the present time there is considerable uncertainty as to the future. Everybody seems to be waiting

anxiously for the 'appointed day' wondering what changes in organisation will be made, and how they will be affected personally. In the main they have no stomach for the policy of nationalisation, but have resigned themselves to the inevitability of its development by assuming an attitude of 'Well, here it is, I suppose we must make the best of it.' We do not expect the hidebound anti-nationaliser to suddenly embrace with enthusiasm the new ideas, but we think it is a pity that there cannot be more cordiality on this important piece of economic planning. The path to co-operation, however, is not likely to be easy. The chief factor in railway operations today is the management-labour relations and all those who take pride in their craft or profession must use every device to infuse an enthusiastic spirit of service in the community.
There has been a tendency in recent years towards the centralisation of authority. I take the view that that has very bad results on traffic operations. There is too much authority centralised in the hands of too few people, which robs the lower officials of their initiative and control over staff. When a local problem arises, this creates delays and indecision. Very often lower grade railway officials are unable to do anything because they are awaiting the decision from somebody higher up, but the staff sometimes become contemptuous of them because they do not think they are competent, although the fault is to be found in higher placed officials.
It is important to remember that traffic operations continue by day and by night. They continue 24 hours of the day at week-ends, on Christmas Day and on Bank Holidays. Some of the most important traffic movements take place at night, and very often local problems arise, but the official who is primarily responsible for giving decisions is off duty. He may be in bed asleep or he may be away for the week-end. It is the experience of many that where a local problem arises and it requires the decision of a high official, he cannot be found or he has to be dug out of bed or he is away for the week-end. Consequently, that sort of thing, where decisions on local matters remain in the hands of people far far away, is bad and it does make for indecision and delays, which, again, would be reflected in train delays and bad traffic operations. As I said, there is far too much authority residing in the hands of too few and in my view it leads to a paralysis in solving local problems. It is important that we should decentralise as far as we can and give greater initia-


tive and responsibility to local officials to arrive at a decision on the spot.
Again there is the question of the control of traffic movements. There was a time when the railway signalman had greater powers of discretion than is the case today for determining the priority passage of traffic. I am pleased to say that there are at least two signalmen today listening to what I am saying so I will have to be very careful in my remarks. A great deal of the initiative which signalman have had in determining the priority of the passage of trains has been taken away from them and has been vested in an office miles away, which may be the divisional control office. Before they can pass one train in front of another they have got to get permission from somebody in an office miles away and while they are getting that decision from him they could pass a train from one section to another and avoid delay. I myself believe that if we could restore to the signalmen a greater degree of responsibility for determining the passage of trains through their sections we should improve very much upon the present position of delays both to passenger and goods trains. Local circumstances are not always known to the official afar off who has to give a decision.
There is at the moment a great battle taking place between the theoretician and the practical man, and the theoretician on the railways, in my view, has far too much authority and the practical man far too little. A theory to cover the whole railway system cannot be imposed, nor can rigid decisions based on such a theory, because circumstances change and vary from place to place and we must, if we are to get flexibility of traffic movement, give far more initiative and responsibility to the practical men who are engaged in doing a day-to-day job.
I should like to conclude on this note—the railways of our country are to be nationalised on 1st January, 1948. I feel that both railway staffs and management can, if they will—and I believe they will—make a great success of the nationalisation of the railways. There are many members of the management who fear the coming of nationalisation. Why, I do not know, because their interests are adequately safeguarded in the Transport Act, as are those of the staff. I believe they are labouring under a de-

lusion. In view of the difficulties which are facing the country, and our need to produce and export more which, in turn, will mean greater demands on the railways for quicker transport, I trust that those in the management circles will now come down from their high horses and consult more often than they have done the lower grades and the lower body of officials responsible for the practical working of the railways. I do not believe that the fullest use is being made of machinery which already exists to bring managements and staff together.
We have in the railway system a wonderful machinery which, if properly used, could get the best out of the staff and officials. But there is on the part of the managements a feeling that once an ordinary member of the staff begins to offer suggestions as to how a department or a station can be run better, he is interfering in something with which he should have nothing to do. I have been a member of a local departmental committee at one of our London terminal stations for 15 years. I was chairman and secretary of the employees' side of that local departmental committee. Time after time we found that the railway officials refused to discuss with us matters of vital importance affecting the day-to-day working of our job. They said it was interference, and they would not tolerate interference from anybody. That attitude is entirely wrong, and I believe the managements and the railway company officials have a lot to gain by consulting with their staff on day-to-day problems. The local departmental committee machinery is there, and there are also joint production committees and works committees. These should all be utilised to get the best out of the staff and to obtain more efficient working of the railways.
I believe that co-operation between the management and staff will solve the problems which we are facing. We must reduce delays to both passenger and goods trains; if we can only reduce delays by 50 per cent. we shall solve for some time to come the problem of shortages of locomotives and wagons. The whole object of my seeking to raise this question on the Adjournment has been to try to introduce a different approach to the problem from that which is officially taken. Until we can get greater co-operation between management and staff, and deal with these operating delays and the slow-


ing down of traffic movements, we shall always have this dislocation and shortage of locomotives and wagons. The speedier movement of traffic is the solution to the problem, and the co-operation between management and staff will go a long way to solve our present difficulties.

1.44 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: After that very long survey of the railway problem from the point of view of a person intimately connected with the railways, I only wish to make a brief speech calling attention to the very serious state of affairs which has just arisen, and which affects not only my constituency and the whole of Tees-side, but the whole programme of national reconstruction. I am referring to the very serious threat to the present steel production on the Tees-side which is brought about by the lack of rail transport. This is the industry's main current problem, and I want to refer to the remarks of a director of Dorman Long the day before yesterday in Middlesbrough. He said that the stocks of finished production at their Cleveland works, which normally at this time of the year are at a minimum and should not exceed 20,000 tons, are rising rapidly. He added that the present figure in stock is 33,000 tons, which is about a week's output and which compares with 53,000 tons during last winter's cold spell. That is a serious problem when we want to get this steel as quickly as possible to places where it is urgently needed in order to meet the needs of national reconstruction. It is estimated that an additional 1,000 wagons a week would be required to keep this steel moving and to keep the works in full production. That is only how it affects one works on Tees-side, but I believe the problem is common to many of the steel producing works and steel fabricating works.
There is another aspect which should also be borne in mind. The wagon shortage which, as I say, is stopping the exit of steel from the works, is also stopping the raw materials coming into the works in a smooth flow, and this is having the effect of interrupting the processes in the steel works. Unless this problem is urgently tackled it will have a serious effect on the steady flow of production in these works. There is a vicious circle, and transport difficulties will do much to slow

down the present rate of production. There are also additional handling costs involved which will do much to increase the price of steel. That may have a serious psychological effect on the men in the steel works if they see these stocks piling up and not being taken away, and it may result in dislocation and unemployment in the steel industry. This case calls for an immediate inquiry by the Minister to ascertain what can be done to get the steel away immediately. One cannot afford to wait for the winter to come along, because it is obvious that transport cannot improve then. The job must be tackled now, and I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give his most urgent attention to the problem.
There is one other small point that I would like to raise, and it concerns the dislocation of traffic caused by the organisation at the L.N.E.R. dock at Middlesbrough. The only way in which traffic can get into this dock in any large quantity is by rail. A temporary road has been made into the dock, but it can only be used on very rare occasions and it is very difficult to work. A few weeks ago a number of motor cars arrived at the dock under their own power from the Midlands for export to the Far East—to China, I believe. They were then loaded on to individual wagons for transport to the railway sidings and then for movement into the docks by rail. They stood on the sidings for two or three weeks, during which time there was considerable deterioration in the cars themselves, and there was also a blockage on the transport in that area. I do not know what can be done about that state of affairs, but an investigation should be made into the whole system whereby goods arriving for transport from the Middlesbrough Docks must come by road and then be transported by rail into the docks. Those are two serious points which, although they affect considerably my own area, may have great repercussions on the national interest if they do not receive attention. I hope that in his reply the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with those points.

1.50 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) has referred to several matters requiring urgent attention, but I suggest to the House that the real value of this very valuable Debate initiated by


the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is that, bearing in mind that nationalisation of the railways is only a few weeks away from us—we are now at 7th November, and it is due to take place on 1st January—this Debate may well be regarded as a sort of prelude to nationalisation. Although I was, perhaps, one of the more strenuous opponents of nationalisation, the remarks I want to make will be based on the assumption that nationalisation will take place on 1st January.
The hon. Member for Acton, in his very well-informed speech, which was based on long experience, and which had the great merit of not introducing political prejudice, referred to a "creeping paralysis" on the railways; and among the causes of the creeping paralysis I think he mentioned the attitude of management and the attitude of staff. He referred to the inefficiency of management and the indiscipline of staff. With regard to management, I think one has to bear in mind that one of the present, but purely temporary, considerations is that there are a very large number of men who, in their deepest convictions, did not think that nationalisation was the best thing for the railways, but who are, nevertheless, in the railway service. Perhaps, when it has become an accomplished fact, those men will realise that a change in attitude should also become an accomplished fact; and, perhaps, we may hope for a change, if a change is necessary. I am not disputing with the hon. Member, neither am I accepting necessarily his premise, but if a change in attitude is necessary, perhaps it will come about when we have the accomplished fact of nationalisation.
The task of management is always extremely difficult when management is not invested with sufficient authority. One of the major problems, as I see it, for the Minister of Transport when he nationalises the railways, will be to invest management with sufficient authority. The hon. Member for Acton was complaining that under the present railway organisation there was not enough decentralisation. It has been repeatedly pointed out by us on the Opposition side that we fear that when nationalisation comes about there will be more centralisation.

Mr. David Jones: The hon. Member will agree, will he not,

that the hon. Member for Acton argued for the decentralisation of operation, not of control of policy, which is an entirely different thing?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member says these are entirely different things, but I would suggest to him that there may very easily be a temptation—after all, it has happened in the Government service before, whether in the fighting Services or the Civil Service—for those who control policy to attempt to control operations from long distance as well. I am merely mentioning this point in the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and his chief will bear it in mind when formulating their policy. In regard to the question of investing management with sufficient authority, I feel that the trade union leaders and all their members will have a very great responsibility in the matter. Somehow we have to infuse into the public service a thing which does not grow in a day. We cannot say that on 31st December there was no particular realisation on the part of railway staffs that they had a great public service to perform, and that on 1st January it will suddenly have dawned on them. Somehow, there has to be a change of heart, I suggest.
I know, and have known all my life—I have counted him a friend of mine for many years—a man continuously in the railway service for more than 50 years, who has been a ticket collector for the last two years, and I was chatting with him a little while ago about nationalisation of the railways, and also about the present spirit among the railway staff. His recollection goes back to long before the Railways Act; and what he said was that, not merely at present, but for some years there has been no ambition among railwaymen. The opportunities for ambition among the lower grades of the railway staff are very limited indeed. We may now face the fact that the new entrants are rather better educated than their fathers and grandfathers were; and I would suggest that, perhaps, a complete review of the conditions of employment, the conditions governing increases of pay, the availability of jobs and of promotion, would be highly desirable, as it seems to me that there has been too much specialisation in all grades of the railway service.
I know that we found in the Army frequently that, if we wanted men to be


interested in their work, it was a good thing to give them a change of job and to let them do the jobs of some other fellows. There were some officers who considered that every member of a gun team should from time to time do the job of every other member of the team. I suggest that, if railway employees were given the opportunity for doing their fellows' jobs sometimes, without losing opportunities of increases of pay by doing so, they would both find more interest in their work and be more suitable, perhaps, for promotion; that is to say, the men should be given a test, each one at different jobs, available within a certain sphere, let us say in a railway station or within a shunting yard. If a man excelled at each of the jobs within that sphere, I suggest he should be a man who should be available for promotion. What my friend the ticket collector had to say about there being no ambition would then, to a large extent, cease to be true.

Mr. George Thomas: Under nationalisation.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member says under nationalisation. That is his optimistic hope. It remains to be seen whether it will be so. I personally should have been prepared to agree with him if he had commented, "This could have been done years ago."

Mr. Thomas: It was not.

Mr. Renton: It was not done years ago, but that is not entirely the employers' fault. I think that to some extent the trade unions will have to brush up some of their ideas, which have led them in their negotiations in the past to "crystallise" men in their particular occupations—if I may use that word in that sense, for it is, perhaps, appropriate in the circumstances. Trade union rules—and I have had cause to look at them fairly frequently—have tended, in my opinion, to say, "Here is a man doing a job. We have got to be able to fix him in that job, to give him security for the rest of his life, to ensure that his work goes on, and that he gets increases in pay to which his time in the service entitles him." This seems to me to have been the main factor governing formation of the rules which the unions have negotiated, while many other factors have been omitted entirely. Amongst those, I suggest, is the factor giving a man

the opportunity to increase his knowledge of the service in which he is working, and to get that advancement which that increase of knowledge might merit. Therefore, I suggest that a necessary step, at this particular moment, is a complete review of the trade union rules—I call them "trade union rules" for want of a better term—governing conditions of service on the railways.
The hon. Member for Acton pointed out a number of obvious defects in present railway operation. I wish to mention four other matters which appear to me to be defects—not at great length, but just so that the Parliamentary Secretary may have the need of them in mind, so that they will be well before him and his Minister when their plans are being made. I first refer to the very serious pilferage on the railways. The hon. Member for Acton did not mention that. It is causing grave public anxiety. It is not diminishing. It is one of the principal causes of the black market, and it must receive attention. It is a very great, difficult and grave problem, but it must receive attention. I think there is an uneasy feeling among the public that it has not been receiving the attention it deserves. Next, there is the overcrowding of passenger trains, which I mention largely for the purpose of record, and I will say no more about it. It is present to everybody's mind, although it was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Acton.
My third point is the embargo on deliveries at certain, mainly rural, railway stations. This is a point which greatly affects my own constituency, where there are no large towns. There are large rural areas served by small towns, each with its railway station, and it is a most lamentable fact that, of the five towns in my constituency, two have suffered continuously, for about the last four or five years, from an embargo on the delivery of goods at their stations from the Midlands and the North of England. If the fullest use is to be made of our railway facilities we must try to cut down this embargo on railway deliveries, which holds up the agricultural industry, which has held up the housing programme—as I have mentioned in this House before—and is fraught with danger in that if it continues too long it may become a permanent habit.

Mr. D. Jones: Will the hon. Member develop that point a little further? Does he mean there is an embargo on deliveries, or is it an embargo on bringing goods up by rail from the starting point, which is entirely different?

Mr. Renton: Surely, it means both, does it not? As I understand the problem it means both. It means that the railways, in order to economise in their services, have decided that particular places such as, in the case of my constituency, Ramsey and St. Ives are not sufficiently large and important to have a goods delivery service—which means the running of trains and the delivery of goods to those towns. That is how it is worked out. I do not wish to go into this in great detail, because I have already had a long correspondence with the Minister of Transport, and have raised the matter at Question time. But if the Parliamentary Secretary—upon whose appointment I should here like to congratulate him and wish him success—will look into that, he will find it is so.
There is a similar problem on the passenger side between Ramsey, which serves a very large Fenland area, and Holme. There is a small branch line which enables the people at Ramsey to reach the London and North Eastern Railway main line, and it is their only way of getting by train from Ramsey to the rest of the world. That branch line has just been cut down because the number of passengers was too small to warrant the expenditure of coal and railway stock which it involved; it was not a very great expenditure—several hundreds of tons a year—but the traffic was too small. On the face of it that seems a very good argument for closing it down; but, when we look into the matter a little further, we find that, although the number of passengers who would like to use the service is very considerable, very few people did use the service because it was badly timed. That is not the fault of the Parliamentary Secretary or of anybody at the Ministry of Transport. It is a fault somehow of organisation, and no doubt the hon. Member for Acton would be pleased to hear me say so. But it is a fault of which we should be aware.
I do not think that passenger services which have a potential value if properly used—and that means mainly if properly timed—should be closed down forcibly

merely because they have been misused. I will not develop that point, which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind. Some of these branch lines in the country are sometimes laughed at, but not by the local people, who need them as their only means of transport, so I do hope that these branch services will not be closed down.

Mr. Rogers: Surely, the obvious alternative to those uneconomic branch lines is the adaptation of an efficient road service?

Mr. Renton: Yes, by all means, in due course of time. But bearing in mind the economic policy which has to be followed in this country for an apparently indefinite number of years to come—we do not know how long; all we know is that by the end of 1948 if all goes well, and goes at its best, there will still be an adverse balance of trade of £250 million, and a large need to export buses as one of our most valuable exports—does the hon. Member really consider that we can afford to overlook these passenger rail services? It may be a valuable means of saving dollars, if dollars have to be put in their place—as they have to be—but the town of Ramsey cannot be isolated; it is one of the most valuable food-producing areas in this country. It cannot be isolated; something has to be done for it.
In conclusion, let me say that, although I was an extremely firm opponent of the Transport Act, and although I would still be very glad if something happened to prevent it from coming into force, I shall do all I possibly can—and I am sure every hon. Member on this side of the House holds the same view—to assist the Government by constructive criticism with a view to making the nationalised service work.

2.7 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Even a late convert to the great scheme which is to be introduced on 1st January is welcome.

Mr. Renton: Let me interrupt the hon. Member at once to say I thought I had made it perfectly clear that I am not a convert.

Mr. Davies: I thought the hon. Member was willing to do his best, and from the arguments which he adduced I thought he rather supported the case


which we had made when asking for the setting up of the British Transport Commission. Many of the things to which he has referred will have no real remedy until we are able to tackle some of the fundamental difficulties which the transport system has neglected for too long a period.
I wish to deal with the more immediate difficulties of the railway companies. When my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), talks about indiscipline and lack of support and interest on the part of some of his colleagues on the railway, it is only fair to point out that these are in a very small minority, in my view. Over the war years in particular, the railwaymen contributed magnificently to the movement of traffic and to the general good of this country. When we take into consideration the worn-out machine that they had to work, together with the difficulties the men on the footplate, in the sheds and in the offices had to put up with, I believe it was only because of their high sense of patriotism that they were able to carry us through our difficulties so well. If the railway-men are taken into proper consultation there will be no more willing body of workers to help us over the next few months and years, when our difficulties will be greatest.
Reference has been made on a former occasion by the President of the Board of Trade, and today by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) in connection with Middlesbrough, to the problem of wagon shortage. It is a problem which is causing some anxiety in the minds of the colliery people and other big industrial undertakings in this country It rather looks, if we are able to lift many thousand and maybe millions of tons more coal in the next few months, that we shall be in a jam in regard to wagons. It would be depressing, if after all the efforts that have been made, we had this bottleneck and some of the colleries had to close down. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what special measures the Government and the Ministry have in mind, in co-operation with the industrialists and the staffs on the railways, to match this situation. We have been told that there will be many hundreds and thousands more wagons,

but they will not be immediately available. I do not agree with my hon Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), who said that, with the contraction in the amount of tonnage conveyed, there should be no wagon shortage. I do not think the equation he set out gives the whole story. The way wagons are loaded and the journeys they have to do are all factors that have to be taken into consideration. With the coming of the five-day week, we find a slowing up in the weekly discharge of wagons.
I hope we can be assured that an approach has been made to responsible bodies, such as the chamber of commerce and other organised bodies who can speak for the industrialists and for the traders, to show that overtime is being worked, and that Saturdays and Sundays, and even night work, is being considered. This is a matter absolutely vital to the coal industry, as well as to the other commercial interests in the country. Undoubtedly, some of the traders have used wagons as storehouses. I think this is particularly true of the coal distributive side. The demurrage charges may not have been commensurate with the services they have been getting in this direction. It is possible, and, if so, has anything been done, to increase the demurrage charges, and to place sanctions upon these delinquents. There may be some difficulty about that because it involves legislation, but we ought to take steps to remedy it at the earliest possible moment. It would be better to do that now than to find ourselves in a jam later on.
It is true that there has been a great sense of frustration among the workers. It may be due to some extent to lack of mobility in the employment of the workers, but I think that when we get the new set up, we shall see that a lad entering the industry will be able to pass through many sections, graduating from the bottom to the top, instead of being at a dead end. I think there are grounds for this sense of frustration among a large section of the workers in the industry, but I do not think there is any reason for its continuance. It has been said that the sense of security might have had something to do with the lack of interest and enterprise which railwaymen have shown. I do not think that is so. What is important to remember is that after the last war, instead of the railwaymen having the security they had


known, there was a large amount of temporary and casual labour employed, some of it on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis. Instead of a young lad being employed in the industry throughout his life, we found that many young people had their notices when they reached the adult rates at 20 years of age. The result is that we have this backwash today.
When talking about the conditions of the railwaymen, we have to recognise the great services they have given, and to see that they are fairly paid as compared with other sections of workers. I think there has been a sense of frustration in the past because there has been little chance of promotion. There has been stagnation, certainly on the clerical and in the conciliation grades, and this casualisation of employment has also contributed to the problem. Let us project our minds ahead to 1st January, when we are to have this great change in the transport world. I should like to think this means that we shall utilise all the valuable transport resources in a co-ordinated way; but there is no reason why, in the remaining days, we should not be thinking how best we can utilise this machine. Can we be assured that full use is being made today of the inland waterways? There is a large amount of rough and undamageable traffic which might be put on to the canals. Can we also be assured that full use is being made of road transport to relieve some of the traffic which the railways cannot conveniently carry? In short, I should like an examination of all three sides, and it may be that coastal shipping can also contribute something to help in the problem.
We need to bring in the workers from other industries with expert knowledge, the men who have been shunting, running the trains and working in the signal boxes. They know the day-to-day problems. There is no need to bring in people from outside who have not grown up in the industry. I hope, when the Government talks about bringing in the workers for consultation, that this means the railwaymen, as well as the miners and other folk throughout our nationalised industries. It has been said that there is a lack of interest in this great process of nationalisation. If we can be assured that it means increasing the scope of advancement adventure for the ordinary workers whose vocation it is to work in

these industries, then we shall get infinitely better results. I do not think there is any desire on the part of managements to sabotage the efforts of the country or of the Government in respect of this great nationalisation policy, and in getting the best out of the transport industry. I have much respect for the management of the railways. I agree that they have not been given the scope at lower levels which they ought to have had, but I am sure that we shall have the best possible results if the workers feel an interest in the new set-up, and are assured that Socialism does not mean a change in name, but a chance to the men on the ground levels to have a say in the show.

2.20 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I only hope that British railways may one day again have as much space at their disposal as we have in this House this afternoon. I was interested in the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies), and all the other Members who have spoken in this Debate today have also referred to the question of morale in the railway industry. I hope the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that railwaymen in this country have very great hopes of the outcome of the nationalisation of the railways, which comes into force next year. Members of the National Union of Railwaymen have been making speeches to railwaymen, urging them to make the nationalised railway industry a success. They have been saying, openly—and I am glad of it—that the industry will be on test next year. The only thing I regret that they have done—and I hope the Minister will take steps to prevent it—

Mr. D. Jones: Can the hon. and gallant Member quote one instance where any responsible leader of the N.U.R. has ever done anything other than say that the railway industry should be properly run?

Major Legge-Bourke: I was commending the fact that members of the N.U.R. are telling railwaymen that their industry will be on test next year, and I was about to say that I hope the Minister will try to persuade them to be a little more realistic in their approach, in regard to what will happen in the immediate result. In my constituency, a speech was made by


a fairly responsible member of the N.U.R. saying that nationalisation of the industry was the only way in which prices to the consumer could be brought down, the only way in which members of the industry could obtain their full rights. I believe that any industry, whether nationalised or private, must be judged by the results it gives to the public, to the so-called consumer. I dislike the word "consumer," because I think that we are over-inclined today to divide the population into various sections. Each section has a relationship with the other, and the watertight compartment attitude is far too prevalent today.
In his speech, the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) mentioned that there was a great battle going on between the theoretician and the expert in the industry. I thought that most of his remarks, and particularly that one, were a great condemnation of the Government. We are moving into an age when theories are overriding experience, and I believe that the nation is suffering as a result. I prefer to see the expert running industry. One. of the greatest sins for which this Government will be blamed in years to come will be that by overcrowding the Business of the House in the way they have done, they have tended to make a politician's job a wholetime job, instead of men from all walks of life being able to come here and bring their full experience with them. It will be very unfortunate for this country if, as a result of the ideals which have been put into the heads of workers in industry, nationalisation proves to be a great disappointment. In our present economic plight there is a great danger that that will happen, and I hope the Minister will keep in touch with leaders of the N.U.R. and other unions, with a view to seeing that they should be realistic in the promises they are making to the men as to what will happen when nationalisation takes place. If that is not done there will be more trouble in the railway industry than there has been for years past. It will exacerbate the complaints made today, and will affect those who rely on the railways—

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. and gallant Member has already said that members of the N.U.R. are telling railwaymen that it is up to them to make a success of

nationalisation. Is that one of the promises he is referring to?

Major Legge-Bourke: That is not what I am complaining of at all; I am commending it. What I deplore is the idea being put into the heads of railwaymen, by their leaders, that as soon as nationalisation comes into force everything will be rosy.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. and gallant Member has made a definite allegation. Will he say who said that?

Major Legge-Bourke: I am prepared to send a cutting of the speech to the Minister.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. and gallant Member should withdraw what he has said, or substantiate it.

Major Legge-Bourke: I will certainly not withdraw. The tone of the speech in my constituency, as reported in the Press, definitely gave me the impression—

Dr. Segal: Who made that speech?

Major Legge-Bourke: —that leaders of the N.U.R. were trying to instil into railwaymen the idea that as soon as nationalisation came into force all the things for which they were asking would be granted. We have seen, in the coal industry, that that cannot be done at once. I hope it is beginning to happen now, and that the industry is becoming happier, but it will not happen at once in the railway industry, any more than in any other of our industries, because of our economic plight. If that truth is avoided there will be far more unhappiness in every industry than there need be; in my view, there will be a great deal of unhappiness in this country for some years to come. This is not a fitting occasion to go into the causes of that, but I still believe that a great deal of difficulty, particularly in the railway industry, could be overcome if unions could have their meetings at a time which was suitable for every member who wanted to attend. I appreciate that in the railway industry a great many men are carried all over the country by the very nature of their work, and that it is hard to get them together for meetings. It is a difficulty which is almost insurmountable when it comes to holding joint consultative committee meetings, but—

Mr. D. Jones: Then the hon. and gallant Member will agree that every branch of the N.U.R. fixes the time, place, and date of its meeting.

Major Legge-Bourke: I appreciate that. I believe that many of the meetings take place over the weekends, and that many people in all walks of life do not want to be concerned with their professions over the weekends.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. and gallant Member is getting close to matters of interference in the internal affairs of the trade unions, for which the Minister is in no way responsible.

Major Legge-Bourke: I appreciate that, but, with great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would say that this industry is about to be nationalised, possibly next year, and this is perhaps the last opportunity we may have of speaking on this subject before it is nationalised.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member must recognise that the Minister is in no way responsible for the meetings arranged and held by the trade unions.

Major Legge-Bourke: I also appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I believe that remarks made in this House go to other places besides the Ministry, and this is an idea that I am putting forward. I mentioned it from the point of view of making the industry a happier industry. I do not want to make any more difficulties for it; heaven knows, it has enough already. I believe that it is the business of employers, as far as possible, to make it a feasible proposition for the unions to hold their meetings in business hours. I think that if that were done the attendance at the branch meetings would be much greater, and they would get a far better cross-section of opinion than is the case to-day. That is my opinion, and I put it forward for what it is worth.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary will bear that in mind, particularly when the industry becomes nationalised, because I am certain that the more industries are nationalised, the more important it will be for the branch meetings of the trade unions to be well attended. There is a far greater danger of remote control under nationalisation. That is a thing

to be deplored, for the greater the humanising effect that can be brought about, particularly in the railway industry, the better. It is difficult to get over the problem of remote control. It is difficult to make it possible for branch meetings to be well-attended, and I hope for that reason that we shall, when this industry is nationalised, realise that there are many difficulties to be overcome, and none greater in my opinion than this affecting the morale side of the industry.
There is one aspect on the matter of housing with which I would like to deal. I have given it considerable thought, and I have firmly in my mind the belief that every industry, not merely the agricultural industry, should have tied cottages. I would like to see the industry have sufficient accommodation available for its own employees, so that whenever a man shifts his job he would know that a house would be available for him. I realise that that is a far distant target, but I believe that the remarks which the hon. Member for Acton made in the opening stages of the Debate were very true, and that it is not only the railway industry to which they apply. I am certain that there is no one factor affecting the morale of the nation at the moment more than housing. I believe that over-crowded families, and families that are split up because of lack of accommodation are the cause of more unhappiness and bad morale in industry than anything else. I hope that in future we shall see a big move in the industry when it comes under the National Railway Commission to ensure accommodation for all employees in the industry.
I believe that what the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) said in his closing remarks is generally shared by all hon. Members on this side of the House, that we have to accept, much against our better judgment, the idea of this industry being nationalised, and now that that is to be a fait accompli, we fully intend to put nothing in the way of making it a success. If it is a success, well and good. The difficulties which the railways and other industries have to overcome are so great that, in my opinion, I should have thought there were more important things to do than to nationalise them. Many of the complaints made against private enterprise in connection with the railways will, I believe, be far more likely to be made against the National Railway Commission in the


future, unless the Minister realises that Whitehall administration tends to increase rather than to decrease remote control.

Mr. Follick: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Gentleman referred to a fait accompli. How can it be a fait accompli, which is something that is past.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

2.38 p.m.

Major Bruce: I think that the remarks of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) gave the impression that there is a wide and general feeling among the workers on the railways that, once the formal act of nationalisation is achieved, all their difficulties would disappear. I have some slight knowledge of the town of March, which is in the hon. and gallant Member's constituency, and I can assure him that there are not many members of the National Union of Railwaymen there, or of other unions, who have any such illusions. In my own city of Portsmouth, for a considerable time now, members of the N.U.R. have been meeting together and discussing in a practical manner, as one would expect them to do, some of the difficulties which they know inevitably lie ahead. I think that the hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree if he thinks that either members of the N.U.R. think that there will be no difficulties or that their own leaders are endeavouring to lead them into that belief.

Major Legge-Bourke: I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman when he says that the vast majority of the workers may not actually think so. I maintain, however, that there are some of their leaders going around, rather putting that idea into their heads.

Major Bruce: It was significant that the whole trend of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was to that end, to which he added a broad and general charge, without specific evidence, and a general crack at the Government that, owing to the over-crowding of the legislative programme, this House now had a race of professional politicians who had no spare time to devote to outside matters. This attitude on the part of Opposition

Members becomes occasionally a little sickening. I do not know if they wish to return to the position before the war, when some 300 Members of the Conservative Party held over 775 directorships. Today this House—and I make no exception of party—comprises men and women of nearly every profession. I think that makes nonsense of his suggestion that the activities of the House have in any way suffered by reason of the fact that we have not today a similar state of affairs to that which we had before the war.
I want to pass to the more constructive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies) who touched upon—and, of course, owing to his profession, very skilfully—the whole question of the need for more railway wagons and more rolling stock. It is up to all of us, in whichever part of the House we may be, to search around and to see how within our own limited experience, or the experience of others that is available to us, we can assist the country to overcome this very great shortage of new railway wagons and the very pressing need for repairs. We had an example earlier this year of transport dislocations. They were, of course, very largely caused by the weather, but, nevertheless, they were partly caused by the lack of railway wagons, owing to the fact that so many of them had become obsolete during the war. As a result, there was a very serious fuel shortage. I do not think that anybody wants that to happen again. The transport system of the country, particularly the goods part of it, is the artery of the country along which our various products for the capital industries and the consumer industries flow. Therefore, I think that we must give this matter very serious attention indeed.
The only modest contribution I can make to this Debate is to draw the attention of my hon. Friends and the House in general to the fact that in the Royal Dockyard installations in Great Britain—and there are many of them; the principal ones are, of course, at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Chatham, Sheerness and Rosyth—there are, at the present time, facilities for undertaking quite a reasonable quantity of railway wagon repairs. I do not want to enlarge the amount which could, in fact, be accomplished. Some of them, moreover, are actually capable of under-


taking wagon construction. During the Recess, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Mr. Snow) and I made a three-day tour of the Royal Dockyard at Portsmouth. We investigated at every point of production the various stages required to be gone through in order to construct a railway wagon with the facilities at present existing in the yard. It is quite clear that the Royal Dockyards have a significant role to play—not a large one, I agree—first, in the construction of wagons, though this could only be done at the present time on a small scale owing to material difficulties, and, secondly, in the repair of wagons.
Of course, when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary considers this possibility, he may find that there are very long outstanding and important naval priorities. I can pass no observation on those priorities today. All I can do is- to point out that, owing to the general intention—about which we have not had specific details so far—to make certain cuts in capital expenditure, it is reasonable and logical to presume that some of the cuts will fall on naval priorities. Therefore, all I ask my hon. Friend to do is that, as and when this happens, he, along with other Ministers associated with the matter, should at least explore the possibility of these facilities being used, because every wagon that is repaired means that the transport problem is correspondingly eased. As we all know, the workmen in the Portsmouth dockyard are very skilled in these matters, but the ability of these yards—I am making no exceptions—goes far beyond that.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth and I went into the dockyard, we visited one of the factories. We saw two or three large crank cases for railway locomotives in the course of production. The workers there say that much more could be done. We saw several oil tanks—about 96 of them—being manufactured for one of the principal railway companies which was converting its firing from coal to oil. We saw several petrol tanks that were being turned over for use as oil tanks. The only reason why I mention this is because, in the total mobilisation within the limits of capital priorities to be determined by the Government, I would urge my hon. Friend, when considering

this, and when taking stock of all the resources, to make sure that his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty is also encouraged to make his contribution in this as well as in other fields, because I can assure him that the workers in the dockyards would be highly delighted if he would do that.

2.46 p.m.

Mr. Rogers: I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I have a short contribution to make to this discussion. Before making it, however, I wish to refer to one or two things which the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) said about trade union leaders and the interesting suggestion he made about tied cottages. It is an interesting idea, but I do not quite see how it squares with the theory of a property-owning democracy. The number of employees in the transport industry is so huge that the amount of property needed by the Transport Commission to house all its staff would be a very considerable proportion—

Major Legge-Bourke: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, perhaps I may say that I had not intended to go into details on the matter, and to suggest, as Ministers sometimes suggest, that he might speak to me about it in private. I see no more reason why it should not be possible for a worker to buy his house from the transport industry than it has hitherto been possible for him to do from his local authority.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has a dangerous tendency to want to explain in private. This is the second point this afternoon that he has wanted to deal with later on. Of course, it is possible, as he says, that if it were part of the Transport Commission's job to buy cottages and then sell them to their employees, they could do so. But it is not wise that they should do that, and, in any case, if they did, they would not be tied cottages. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if he had much experience of railway-owned properties, and had seen the kind of houses that railway companies in the past have put up for their employees, and would only speak to those who live in them, he would very rapidly change his view about the desire for Transport Commission owned cottages.
The hon. Gentleman also said that he thought the increase of legislation was dangerous because it tended to breed a race of professional politicians. If I may say so as kindly as I possibly can, the sort of speech he made this afternoon only shows the necessity for more full-time study. He made remarks about certain trade union leaders promising their men too much. I suppose that I have talked to railwaymen and road workers all over the country as much as anybody in the land. I have addressed dozens of conferences of railway and transport leaders. I have also spoken to the leaders of many of the trade unions, and never once have I heard them say that an easy paradise will happen after 1st January, 1948. I have told them that they cannot expect any outstanding results for at least five or 10 years after 1st January, 1948. In point of fact, we have been pessimistic.
Most of us who are here representing the transport workers are practical men and have been all our lives in the industry. Because of our practical experience in the industry we believe that the Transport Board should give the country a better service that it has had hitherto. I do not know a single transport official in the highest ranks, for example on the London Passenger Transport Board, who is opposed to the nationalisation of transport. There may be some, but I do not know of one, and I know them all pretty well. The workers in the industry are convinced that this Measure will result in a long overdue improvement in the organisation of our transport service.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) referred to various sections of the management not having the same enthusiasm. The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Rogers) heard the hon. Member for Acton. How does he reconcile what he has said with what his hon. Friend said?

Mr. Rogers: It is perfectly simple. The transport organisation is a vast undertaking, and includes men of all political points of view. I said that, so far as I am concerned, in London transport I did not know of a single high-ranking official opposed to the idea of public ownership. I know that on the main lines there may

be some opposed to it, and I will deal with that aspect of the matter a little later.
It was said by Robert Louis Stevenson that to travel pleasantly was better than to arrive, but today we travel unpleasantly, and are not sure that we can arrive. There is no doubt that our transport system is in a parlous condition and those of us who have devoted our lives to the system are very sorry to see this deterioration of what was a great and proud public service. The faults and difficulties of the problem stick out a mile. In the main they are largely technical, such as the deterioration and increasing obsolescence of equipment as a result of the war, and lack of adequate reorganisation on some of the railways in the years between the wars. Partly they are due to the old men in charge through directorships. Some of those who were young even would not know much about transport because several of them were drawn from those represented by Members on the opposite benches. What they knew about transport would not cover a very large postage stamp. However, do not let us get personal. It is very easy to diagnose the troubles, which are largely technical, and the solution is known to every transport manager.
The psychological aspect has been stressed on this side of the House. Reference has been made to the failure of the railway companies to utilise their manpower to the fullest possible extent. That has always been one of our great complaints. Recently the Railway Executive has been complaining bitterly about inability to run the railways efficiently owing to the fact that a great number who went into the Services have not come back to the industry. This has been going on for years. Thousands of the most able men in the service have either found themselves a niche in the Labour movement, or have gone out into the commercial world and have made great careers—

Sir William Darling: Better opportunities.

Mr. Rogers: Their ability has been recognised by the greater perspicacity of magnates outside the railway companies. That has been going on for many years, and is still going on in connection with the London Passenger Transport Board which has a system by which every man can apply for a job on a high grade in another department. It is true he can


apply, but, let us assume that he is an accountant and applies for a job in the public relations department. When he comes before the committee he is told, "You cannot be a public relations officer, because you have no experience." That has kept men bogged down in their jobs for a great number of years, and the result is that these young men, who have families to maintain, have decided to leave the industry and to get rid of their frustration in other directions.
The British Transport Commission commences its work on 1st January next year. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will still be in the Transport Ministry on 1st January—one never knows these days—[Laughter.] He will not misunderstand me. I have the greatest respect and admiration for him personally, and I am sure he will make a magnificent success of his job. On this question of staff participation in management rests one of the solutions to the psychological problem which is behind much of our inefficiency today. I am not satisfied that the trade unions have done enough thinking on this problem, and I am certain the railway companies and road haulage companies have done nothing at all to work out a scheme. The local departmental committees could have been used as excellent machinery for co-operation with the managements. But, every time a suggestion has been put forward by a worker, the reply has been "This is a matter of management, and is not for you to discuss." So a great deal of valuable initiative on the part of the men has been lost. I do not think the other side have given enough attention to this problem, and if the Minister is fully conscious of the necessity of getting as much efficiency as possible from the Transport Commission after the 1st January, he will do his best to see that both sides get an excellent scheme working at the earliest possible moment. It is most important to make this part of our Socialist programme a success.
In conclusion, I would make a technical suggestion. From certain observations I have made recently about the use of plastics in modern industry and the latest developments in that field, it has occurred to me that there is a distinct probability, I will not say certainty, that plastic could be used as a substitute for steel or timber in the manufacture of trucks, that with the development of plastics plastic panels

would make an excellent substitute for the sides of railway trucks. I ask the Minister to make inquiries into that possibility, because obviously, if is a practical suggestion, it means that after the cost of the initial moulds has been met, the price of panels will be cheaper than if they were made of steel. They would also be a substitute for the timber which is now so difficult to procure, as well as saving valuable quantities of steel.

2.59 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I intervene in this discussion only for the reason that it has revealed the anxiety of a number of little men who feel that the boat is now approaching the Niagara, and that they will now have to undertake the responsibility of the lives they have led and the promises they have made in the years gone by. There has been a revelation of the disquiet and anxiety of the men who have promised to present a new world but are unable to find the wagons to carry on necessary railway activities in this country. What a pathetic exhibition. There have been other revelations.

Mr. D. Jones: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the new world is to be carried in railway wagons?

Sir W. Darling: It would be unwise for me to suggest anything in view of the inadequacy of the arrangements for carrying on the old one. I am not in the ranks of the Utopians; those ranks are sufficiently well filled without requiring any recruitment from me.
Among the many illuminating observations was the particularly illuminating one from the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Rogers), who gave us an inside picture of the method of recruitment and promotion of the London Passenger Transport Board. He said that if one was in the traffic department and applied for a transfer to the public relations department, the committee responsible for making these appointments said, "You are not qualified to enter the public relations department because you have no experience of public relations." That, I understood, was the circumstance which the hon. Member thought regrettable in the selection, enlargement and expansion of the utility of the servants of the London Passenger Transport Board. If that picture is correct,


and I have no doubt it is, the hon. Member must be gratified at the rapidly increasing change in the attitude towards these matters. Now, I understand, in the party of which he is a member, the qualification of knowing anything about the job is not necessary and you are prepared to make appointments in any direction—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is mistaken. I do not make any appointments.

Sir W. Darling: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I unfortunately included you among a large number of persons who, I know, do not share your views. The deduction to be made is perfectly clear. Under former circumstances some experience was necessary, Apparently that is now swept away, and we dispense with experience and are prepared to promote persons, whether experienced or not, so long as they follow, shall we say, the party line and are associated with the party colour. If the hon. Member thinks that is an advance and is likely to improve public service, he does not find me among his supporters.

Mr. Rogers: I am afraid the hon. Member does not quite understand the point, nor do I think that he very much wishes to. Perhaps he will allow me to give an illustration in clearer detail.

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend will have to make it very simple.

Mr. Rogers: Supposing there is a clerk in, say, in the accounting department who is doing certain clerk's work, something to do with invoicing or account books or something of a fairly minor routine kind. In the public relations office accounts of one sort or another are also kept.

Sir W. Darling: Expense accounts?

Mr. Rogers: They also have similar work. If a man is of sufficient intelligence, and has the educational qualifications to do the work of an accountant or an accounts clerk in an accountant's office, it is foolish to say that because he has not done work in public relations he is not capable of doing such work in the public relations department. Otherwise how would the Conservative Party fill Ministerial vacancies when they are elected to power?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is doing more than merely explaining, he is making another speech.

Sir W. Darling: I am grateful for your intervention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I had began to think that the hon. Member's second speech was better than his first one. It was certainly a little more illustrative. His suggestion is that the appointments board of London Transport is incompetent to make appointments, and that in his opinion, it is unable to distinguish between accountants in the public relations department and accountants in the traffic office. I leave the hon. Member with these inadequacies. They are part of the enormous volume of inadequacies favoured by those who advocate a system of State nationalisation and control.
I pass from him to the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce), who is so alarmed about the conduct of our national transport system that he spends his much needed Recess not in intellectual stimulus but in searching goods yards, dockyard works and the like, looking for wagons. Is not this a pathetic position we have reached, that hon. ladies and gentlemen should spend their Recess looking for wagons? You, Sir, well remember a system of society, now derided, and, I understand, about to disappear where a shortage of wagons was never known. Under the cruel inadequacies of the capitalist system, I never heard—and I am now a man past middle age—of any shortage of wagons until we had the State control of railways.
The solution is a remarkable one. Under capitalism when wagons were short, bigger wages were paid, more brains were put into the business of providing wagons, and the wagons were always forthcoming. We had a large export business in wagons. Companies existed for no other purpose than the manufacture of wagons and for the hiring of wagons to the railway companies. That was the system under which wagons were freely made available. What is the system now? It is a system whereby the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth with his colleague, during the Recess goes about, with such talents as he has—and heaven knows he has many—searching for the possibility of finding wagons. Under the capitalist system, the incentive system,


the muddled system which obtained in the old days, wagons were always there. Neither you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, nor I ever felt inconvenienced by the absence of wagons. Wagons were, like all other things readily available. Now we have got to the state where the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth devotes his Recess and his unquestioned gifts to the pursuit of this essential element of the transport system, though where it is going to take us—

Major Bruce: Would the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear who he is blaming for this? Is he blaming the Ministry of Transport for the shortage, or is he blaming the private enterprise firms who, up to now, have been responsible for the manufacture of wagons?

Sir W. Darling: I think it is conceded that until a few years ago there was no shortage of wagons. What is admitted is that there is now a shortage. The only solution proffered by His Majesty's Government and their supporters, is the interesting story of how the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth spent his Recess searching for wagons. He considered this a very important matter to which we should direct our attention—the strange quandary which State nationalised railways are going to present to the public. On this occasion, it is wagons of which we are short, but very shortly it may be something else. It may be tickets. I can see myself with the hon. Lady the Member for Rutherglen spending our holidays in Scotland looking for tickets—

Mrs. Jean Mann: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to me, I would point out that my constituency is Coatbridge, and that we do not usually travel together.

Sir W. Darling: If the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) will join the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) and myself in looking for tickets, I should be most happy to be associated with her.
Seriously, this picture is an interesting one. Very shortly we are to have State management of our railways. Are we to understand that these are the methods of management to which we are to be reduced? Is it the business of Members of Parliament to run about getting the spares, sundries and supplies for the nationalised railway service? Is that the

proposition, because that is what is advanced today? The hon. Member for North Kensington is going to make himself responsible for the terms of promotion, advancement and pay in the industry. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth is the wagon searcher—

Mr. Sparks: rose—

Sir W. Darling: And this hon. Gentleman is going to tell me what his function is to be.

Mr. Sparks: The point I wanted to make is that the existing state of organisation of the railways is due to private enterprise, not to nationalisation.

Sir W. Darling: I am disappointed in the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). I thought he would make a contribution. I thought he might be interested in providing the missing cups or the pillowslips. We have a picture of what we can expect presented with great clarity. The old system of obese, bald-headed, incompetent, Tory directors of railway companies, whatever its faults and however obscene it may have appeared to hon. Gentlemen opposite, produced a first-class railway service. No one had to go about looking for wagons, pillowslips or tickets in those days. We had all we wanted at a third of the present prices. The railway system was a model to the world. It had established and maintained railway leadership. That system has now passed away and a number of spare-time Members of Parliament are to engage in looking for the odd things that the railway companies are unable to supply themselves. There are two hon. Gentlemen who wish to interrupt me.

Mr. D. Jones: I merely wanted to point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the happy days he is talking about there were nearly 50,000 railwaymen earning less than 40S. a week.

Sir W. Darling: And you, Sir?

Mr. Chetwynd: Would the hon. Member not agree that it is his function to provide the wind and steam?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) that it is the function and prerogative of the Chair to call upon speakers. Further, I would remind hon.


Members that these constant interruptions are incitement to further eloquence on the part of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh.

Sir W. Darling: I know the envy which the House has for the way I am able to enunciate these thought-provoking ideas. There are few speakers on this side of the House who can get so much interest from the lighter-minded supporters of His Majesty's Government. I was flattered—perhaps it was an error—when two interrupters desired to come forward with their proposals, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) was thinking of some other aspect of the railway undertaking to which he might establish a claim, but in that I was mistaken and his interjection is one which leaves me quite cold.
His Majesty's Government and their supporters are now on the defensive. There was not a perfect railway system in this country but it was, by some standards, an adequate one. It is true that, judged by present day standards, 40s. a week seems very little as against £5 12s. 6d. which is the current pay, but hon. Gentlemen will surely appreciate that there is a great change in purchasing power. May I give an example of how that is recognised by ordinary men and women? There is in my constituency, still alive, a man who went through many years, not many months, of unemployment. He said to me, since I became a Member of Parliament, "I was better off when I was getting my 26s. a week every Saturday. I had a banana for the bairn and I had at least a chop once a week. There is £7 or £8 a week coming in to this house now, and I get neither a banana for the bairn nor a chop." I agree that it is an impossible story, but there is a great difference between 40s. a week which will buy almost anything, and £6 or £7 a week which will buy nothing except what the Minister of Food or the President of the Board of Trade arrange we shall buy.
It is apparent that I could speak at great length about this, but I will conclude. I am interested to observe the anxiety and misgiving, amounting almost to despair, which is already rising in the minds of those who have committed themselves as politicians to this theory of the State management of all industry, a theory

which will exclude liberty of choice to vast masses of the people in this country. Dissatisfied with the Passenger Transport Board, no longer can I seek private enterprise as an alternative; no more can I leave one industry when I like, for another which I prefer. I shall be compelled under this system to be a railwayman all my life, a coalminer all my life, a draper all my life. The only thing I shall not be compelled to be, apparently, is a politician all my life—that perhaps will be the one profession to show a degree of variability. The hon. Member for North Kensington gave us a quotation from a great Scottish essayist; he said, as a good transport man should say,
To travel hopefully is better than to arrive.
It is a notion which is shared by all travellers today. I would like to complete the quotation because the completion of it is just as important as the introductory phrase:
To travel hopefully is better than to arrive but the true success is to labour.
I see little profit or truth in the labouring of the thoughts of hon. Members opposite this afternoon.

3.14 p.m.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I am sure we all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) quite as much as he did himself, but he will not expect me to take it seriously, or perhaps even as seriously as some of those people who, to his own satisfaction, interrupted his speech. The one thing which we in this House are all concerned about is the position of railway wagons, and it would indeed be a disaster if we get steel and coal and then find a bottleneck in railway wagons affecting the position during this coming winter. Coal production is going up under nationalisation and steel production is going up at the very thought of nationalisation. With these increases we hope that the railway wagons will be sufficient to cope with production.
There is one part of the railway wagon problem to which I wish to refer—railway wagons sent to the ports. We are fortunate in having now as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport a Member who knows the port position exceedingly well, and he knows as well as anyone in the House that railway wagons have been waiting for an undue length of


time at the gateway of the Port of London hoping to be discharged. This is because the Port of London is being clogged up with large numbers of railway wagons which have to lie idle instead of being in use. It would be interesting to know what is the rate of turn-round in the Port of London, for instance, as compared with the ports of South Wales. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give some consideration to that aspect of the problem.
The other point I want to stress is the distance railway wagons are sent to ports in different parts of the country. This is a point which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has himself stressed before in this House. We are interested to know about the railway wagons sent with goods from South Wales to English ports when they could discharge in Welsh ports with advantage to South Wales. Now that my hon. Friend is in the Ministry of Transport we are looking forward to the vigour which he can bring to bear on a Ministry which steadily requires that vigour. I hope he will pay some attention to this aspect of the problem and give us some indication of what his policy is in regard to these matters.

3.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): I used to regard Fridays in much the same spirit as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas), when one came down and got some bowling practice and tried to catch out whoever was responsible for replying to the Debate. Today I have got to do a bit of defending at the wicket, and I gather from the tone of the remarks addressed to me by my hon. and learned Friend that the next time he will not be bowling off the wicket but at it, and it will behove me during the coming weeks, before we have another full Debate on this subject, to have some answers ready for him.
This has developed pretty well into a full-scale Debate. We have had to range over ground some of which was relevant and some not quite so relevant. That is not any reflection on your Rulings, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but you did have to pull someone up I remember. This Debate has been both grave and gay. I feel myself that the range of topics we have dis-

cussed, such as the moral standards of the nation, the need for additional housing, the amount of pilferage going on on the railways, took up a considerable amount of time this afternoon, but I would prefer to devote myself to some of the more important problems with which in the railway service we have got to deal, and to touch lightly on some of the long-distance problems.
In passing I should like to say that I know my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport would have wished to be here to answer an important Debate of this nature, and I am very glad indeed that he is recovering and that it will not be long before he will be able to undertake his duties again. I should like at the outset to say I dispute the article in the "Financial Times" to which reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and which refers to the creeping paralysis that is overtaking the railways. That is complete nonsense. Railways today are pulling more goods over longer distances than they did in the years before the war. Their effort is greater and the result of their effort is greater. If that means creeping paralysis is overtaking them I should like to see the same creeping paralysis in other features of our national life.

Sir W. Darling: Would the hon. Gentleman prefer infantile paralysis to creeping paralysis?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) undoubtedly knows a great deal about that complaint. He has already given us a great deal of fun this afternoon. I cannot help wondering how old is the child who still cannot get a banana. He must be getting on in years now.

Sir W. Darling: The answer is that the man has a large family of 11.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, he doubtless blesses the Government who have introduced children's allowances which must be bringing him in a substantial reward.

Sir W. Darling: It will not buy him a banana.

Mr. Callaghan: I am bound to say from my own experience that it will.
I would like to relate a story about a railwayman I know in my constituency, and then I will give over and leave the hon. Member. This man came to see me in my constituency last Saturday week. He said, "I am 58 years of age. I was born in rooms and was brought up in rooms. I am married and I live in rooms. I have now reached the stage when I can afford to buy a house. What can I do in order to get into a house?" That, if I may say so, is a commentary precisely upon what my hon. Friend the Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) was saying; namely, that whatever may be the purchasing power of the £ today, there is a servant of the community who, for the first time in his life, is able to think about trying to get a home of his own.
That is a commentary, too, upon other things which the hon. Member for South Edinburgh was talking about. He said that there was not a shortage of wagons before the war. No doubt, he would say that before the war there was not a shortage of houses. What we are trying to do now is to satisfy a demand that can be made by the people because they have got the purchasing power. While we had not got a shortage of wagons before the war, we had got a shortage of freight when we needed it, and I would rather have a shortage of wagons for carrying the freight than not be making the goods which we require to transport from one end of the country to the other. The first situation can be remedied, and we are going to do it.
I do not want to get into the realms of statistics which my hon. Friend the Member for Acton brought before us this afternoon in his speech, which was full of knowledge, as, indeed, one would expect. I do not want to exchange statistics with him, but I would like to quote two or three figures which, I think, reflect very great credit upon those who are operating the railways and those who are working in them. He said—and here I rather disagreed with him—that because less traffic was passing we do not need so many wagons. As one of my hon. Friends said in reply, what one must also take into account is the length of haul over which those wagons are pulled. I believe the technical term is "ton miles," Twenty tons pulled for 10 miles is 200 ton miles. It is a remarkable fact that the length of

haul of all traffic since the war has increased considerably, and although there has been a variation in the amount of merchandise carried, yet the number of wagons required is greater, or just as great, because of the length of haul they have to be taken and the increased length of time for which they are necessarily required.
In this connection, I would like to quote the net ton miles for 1938 and 1947. I have taken the first 36 weeks of each year, which is a fair and representative period. The net ton miles for those first 36 weeks in 1938 were 11,190,000. In the corresponding period of this year which, remember, takes in that dreadful patch at the beginning of the year, the net ton miles were 13,642,000. There is no evidence at all of creeping paralysis about that. Before I leave that particular aspect, I would like to quote one more figure in relation to what I might call a co-efficient of efficiency. It is a rather ugly term, but I cannot think of a better one to describe it: the number of ton miles per engine hour. There is something which will give us an index of productivity on the railways—the number of tons carried for a number of hours over a number of miles, and the engine power used. We have got pretty accurate figures of that co-efficient of efficiency. If we take, as I have done for this purpose, the year 1938 as 100 per cent., then the ton miles per engine hour last year was 110.6 per cent., and the ton miles per engine hour in the first eight months of this year was 110.1 per cent.—a little less than last year, but that is not surprising when one takes into account the bad weather in the first three months of the year. That is as good an efficiency index as one can get. I quote these figures—and now I should like to leave figures—in order to show that, in point of fact, the railways are pulling a very great deal of freight and merchandise over very long distances with pretty reasonable efficiency so far as engine power is concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton compared the position with that of 1944, and said we were not doing so well. That is true. We are not doing so well as we were in 1944. I do not think he is very surprised to think we are not doing so well as in 1944. After all, there is not quite so much cross Channel traffic today as there was in those summer months.


The hauls are a bit more difficult, particularly as the lines were in those days clear for particular bunches of traffic in which some of us had a pretty considerable interest. Moreover, the year 1944 was an exceptional year, in which railwaymen were working 60 and 70 hours a week in order to get the traffic through; and they did magnificently; and no one would expect them to maintain that level of activity, which was maintained in the vital months just after the invasion of France, as a normal thing in subsequent years.
However, I agree with my hon. Friend's call for increased efficiency in many directions. It is undoubtedly the case that in many aspects of our life any two people, each of them working under the same conditons with the same sort of stuff, and under the same difficulties, produce very different results; and one can find that that is the case on the railways, just as one can find it to be so in other fields of our public life today. I am with my hon. Friend completely in his call for the maximum efficiency and drive that we can get in the transport system today.
Let me, for one moment, deal with the immediate short-term position. As regards this winter, a question which has been raised by several of my hon. Friends, I should like to try to strike a balance sheet at the outset of the good points and the bad points. A good point, from the point of view of getting freight traffic through, but not from any other point of view, is that there are not so many passenger trains, and, therefore, the lines will be free to convey freight. I do not put that too high, because we want to carry passengers as well. However, this winter goods must come first. We are running fewer passenger miles this year and, therefore, we do start this winter on a rather better footing from the point of view of the conveyance of freightage, than we started the winter a year ago. Another point in favour of getting the railways going is that so far, unlike the case last year, there have been no major embargoes on freight. There was one in East Anglia for a period of three weeks, which arose out of the Grimethorpe strike. It was raised in a period of three weeks. At this moment we are able to say there are no major embargoes on the carriage of

freight. So there again we are in a better position.
Moreover, we have more railway wagons. The building rate has gone up pretty considerably. We hope to get at least 30,000 this year, and 48,000 is the realistic target that has been set for next year. Now, if we built 48,000 wagons a year in the 10 years before 1939, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh would not have been able to make such a witty speech about the shortage of railway wagons today. Let him remember that in the speeches that he makes in future. Of the wagons of this country today, 30 per cent. were built before the first world war, and there were not sufficient replacements during the war. I did not gather from the speech of the hon. Member—and I do not suppose he wanted me to gather it—whether he thought we should have built more wagons during the war at the sacrifice of other things, or whether he thought the balance was wrongly struck by the Government under the leadership of his right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), and that we did not do as much on the railways as we ought to have done. If that is the case of the hon. Member he would be entitled to argue it. But at least he is not entitled to say now that because there was a shortage of wagon building during those war years, therefore on 1st January next nationalisation is a proven failure.

Sir W. Darling: My case is this. As a member of the public I never heard of any serious shortage of wagons, and I never heard of any Member of Parliament spending the Recess looking for wagons. That is now necessary under the present Administration.

Mr. Callaghan: In those circumstances, I think it would probably be a good thing if I were to trouble the House with the figures of railway wagons. I am sorry to have to do this, because I do not think people absorb figures very well, if I may say so with respect. Let us at least get them on the record, even if they cannot be absorbed here. In 1938 the number of railway wagons available and in use was 1,194,800, as near as one can estimate. Today, the figure is 1,020,760. That is a direct consequence of the war

Sir W. Darling: indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry, but it is, and we have to face that fact and recognise it. If there was no shortage of wagons before the war it is equally true to say that probably there would not be a shortage at this moment if we had built them during the war, and that is what I ask the hon. Member to address himself to.
Another favourable factor is that we are building larger wagons. The eight-ton, 10-ton and 12-ton railway trucks are being replaced, to a great extent, by 16-tonners. That, of course, is a matter of great importance when we are reconverting on this side. I am glad to say, too, that the railway workshops have been going into the job of repairing wagons with real vigour and energy. They have tackled it extraordinarily well, and a fortnight ago we passed the peak of wagons needing repair; the curve has now started to turn downwards. The British Transport Commission, I know, will set themselves a target for the reduction of the figure of wagons needing repair by the end of this winter, and they will do their best to achieve it. If the energy that is being shown by everybody associated with this problem at the present time bears fruit, I have no doubt that over the period of the next six months our position as regards the total number of wagons that we have available will improve substantially.
That does not mean we shall be out of the wood, because we shall have to carry more freight. Indeed, if I had to sum up my own feelings about the situation, it would be rather like this. If we maintain freights at their present level, and if we were not asked to carry any more, it is probable that the railways—subject to major acts of God, like fog, snow and ice—would be able to get through the winter, especially when one takes into account the increasing number of wagons that we ought to have in service, thanks to the vigour of everybody associated with those enterprises. The British Transport Commission will be asked to carry much more freight. The coal output, as all hon. Members of the House will rejoice to see, is going up; and steel output is going up.
Because of these factors, and because we have budgeted for something like a 20 per cent. additional carriage of steel, pig iron, limestone and other minerals of

that sort, I fear that that is where the squeeze is going to come. If this paralysis should overtake us, it will not be because there are not goods, but because the production of this country is going ahead. There is no railwayman in Britain who will not do his utmost to see that the production of goods is not held up because of shortage of wagons, and because he has not been able to carry the job. It is a hopeful factor for him to know that he is coping with a situation which is brought about because of an increase in production. If that fact goes home, we can be sure that everyone will put his back in the job and see it through.
I want to say a word on the steel position on the North-East Coast. It is true that stocks of steel on the North-East Coast have been mounting. The real difficulty is in connection principally with the firm of Dorman Long and Company, who are the most important steel producers. Their stocks have gone up, but generally speaking, taking the steel firms as a whole on the North-East Coast, it is true to say that there is less steel on the ground there now than a month ago because of shortage of wagons. I instructed the Railway Executive Committee this morning to take immediate steps to get wagons to the North-East Coast in order that the shortage of wagons position may be cleared up. It is not that they needed instructions, because they are fully alive to the situation and are doing their best to remedy it. I want as far as possible to avoid this winter getting into the position where we have to take emergency steps of this nature as things put their heads above the surface of the water. It is no use trying to deal with a shortage of wagons for timber here, steel there and coal in another place as these emergencies arise. What we are trying to do is to get into the position where we can look ahead and see where the shortages are likely to arise. In other words, to see exactly where increased production will necessitate further wagons, and to get them there. That is the basis upon which this job is being tackled during the coming winter months.
On the other side of the balance-sheet, there are factors which are not helping us. One is the speed restrictions on the lines. We are not moving so fast over


the lines as in 1938. That is a consequence of the reduced maintenance during the war, and that again is something to which urgent attention is being paid. If we can export coal to Sweden, we can get the timber for the sleepers. We are doing our best on this question of maintenance of the tracks, but I am bound to say that during the present winter speed restrictions will have to continue in force for safety reasons. Another factor which I have to place on the debit side is the five-day week, in so far as it is preventing a rapid turn-round of wagons. We simply cannot afford that, and we have asked all firms to make arrangements for the reception of empty and loaded wagons on the sixth or even the seventh day if necessary. If we can do that, and if we can get a speed up in that direction, then I think that a great deal of our troubles will be overcome.
It is vitally important, however, that at the present time we should not be limited in our turn-round because of the operation of the five-day week. I am glad to say that we are getting a great deal of co-operation from manufacturers, employers and foremen, and all those working on this job. I made some observations about this earlier this week in a speech which was reported in the Press. It has been most encouraging subsequently to receive letters from men who have taken the initiative to sit down and write saying what they are doing to try to overcome the situation in their works. It shows a good spirit, and that there is a great deal of co-operation and goodwill being displayed throughout British industry today. If I have to select the most vulnerable point for transport this winter, I would be inclined to say that it is the North-East Coast. That is where we are likely to have our defences breached. We have had odd spots of trouble there already, such as the timber situation in the docks, where there was an absence of wagons. There is the Dorman Long steel position which has arisen, and I think we shall have to watch that position and that part of the country very closely to make sure that the breaches in our defences do not become a gulf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton also referred to accidents on the railway, a topical subject at the moment. Here, I ought to be careful of what I say,

because the inquiries which are being held are not yet complete, and it would not be proper to express a view until reports have been received by my right hon. Friend. But what I can say is that the main line railways expect shortly to be in a position to give us their views as to what better systems can be introduced to reduce the likelihood of accidents in fog. We asked them to undertake this work after the Bourne End disaster, about two years ago; their consideration of the matter is now complete, and, I hope, will be in the hands of the Minister before long. I prefer to say no more at this stage, except this, that, however perfect the system, and whatever is introduced, at some stage or other a man has to push a button. It is on that vital human element in the railway system that the safety of people travelling on the lines depends. It is a great tribute to the very high sense of responsibility and duty of our railwaymen that the degree of safety of British railways is still extremely high.
I was very interested indeed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. Edward Davies) speaking about the use of other means of transport this winter. We hope to use road transport to carry a considerable quantity of coal—several thousand tons a week. I have made inquiries about carrying by canals, but I fear there will not be much chance of this this winter. On the long-term basis, I am attracted by the proposition of carrying more on our canals but, on the short-term basis, there is a shortage of barges and crews to man them, and I should be wrong to put it to the House today that there is any considerable measure of relief to be expected from carriage by this means this winter.
My hon. Friend also asked whether demurrage charges ought to be increased. I must speak warily on this matter, because it is a cause of great resentment in the industry. I believe there are considerable arrears which have not been paid, and the companies have always claimed that they cannot be expected to pay for other people's sins of commission if they hold up wagons. It is something to which we must pay close attention. Personally, I do not want to see demurrage charges at all, because they show that people are holding up wagons. I want to see the time when there will be no demurrage


payable. But at the moment we are considering whether it would be necessary to increase demurrage in order to coerce the small number—and I emphasise that it is only a small number—who are not behaving in a responsible way in this matter.
The speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was, I thought, broadly answered by my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Rogers). In my opinion and I think that of the House there are more hon. Members on my side who are able to judge than there are on the hon. Gentleman's side. I do not understand what the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely really wants us to do. Does he want responsible members of the National Union of Railwaymen to go round telling people that all their promises will be met under nationalisation, or does he want them to go round saying, in the way they are doing, that they have to make up the arrears of maintenance that have not been undertaken in the war years? I am not sure which way he wants it, but we will leave that because the hon. Member for North Kensington dealt with him very fully.

Major Legge-Bourke: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will urge them to paint an accurate picture of the snags, and not to encourage the men to believe that all their grouses and complaints will come to an end under nationalisation.

Mr. Callaghan: That is a figment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's imagination. There is no one, to my knowledge, who has gone round painting that second picture. I urge him to do what he said he would do—send me details of the people walking round making these irresponsible comments; otherwise these charges are bound to go out as having substance in them when, within my knowledge and experience, they have none at all. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) was doing his duty during the Recess by seeing how he could help his constituents. Perhaps that would not appeal to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh.

Sir W. Darling: On the contrary, I regretted that it was necessary that he should have to look after the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. and gallant Member was trying to combine his duty to his constituency with the needs of the nation, and that seems to me to be a good thing, and a good way for the hon. and gallant Member to employ his Recess. On the subject of wagon repairs in the dockyards, we are very conscious of the potential that exists there. We had to refuse an offer which they made us a year ago because of shortage of materials for repair purposes, but recently we sent to Rosyth dockyard materials for repairs of wagons, and we are investigating now the possibility of using other dockyards for this purpose, and perhaps for the purpose of repairing locomotives. That is another possibility which I hope to look into.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) raised the question of training and recruitment in the railway services, and touched on the past attitude of the trade unions. That attitude was dictated to a great extent by the economic conditions under which we were living. I remember that in my own trade union we passed resolutions to forego overtime in order that the jobs might be spread round a little more thinly. That was the attitude that we had in the 1930's because we got another 500 men jobs if we all said we would not work overtime. There is a vast difference between the 1930's and today. The hon. Gentleman is, in fact, congratulating the Government on having successfully carried out a policy of full employment, which enables the trade unions to lower their barriers of defence.

Mr. Renton: I was suggesting to the Government how, especially in regard to a nationalised industry, they could overcome the attitude produced very largely by the present shortage of labour.

Mr. Callaghan: That is, of course, the consequence of the full-employment policy to which I was referring.

Mr. Renton: A full-employment policy which has led to the direction of labour.

Mr. Callaghan: I ought not to get on to those grounds. I have gone pretty wide already. I am willing to debate that with the hon. Gentleman at any time he likes. I think that, on the whole, this policy is preferable to what we knew in the 1930's. I do not want to get at cross purposes with the hon. Gentleman, because I agree with much he says about the necessity for improved training and


recruitment methods in the railway companies. It seems to me that, in the past, we have not made the fullest use of the ability and talent that are to be found at all stages and at all levels throughout any part of our national life. I am hoping that training schemes within industry, combined with a good educational start beforehand, will enable us to make the best use of those talents.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other points which will have attention, as, indeed, will the points raised by other hon. Members, which I have not dealt with this afternoon. He spoke about the town of Ramsey which was not getting at the present time the deliveries it used to get. I cannot speak in detail about that particular illustration. It is true that the new methods of collection by the railway companies mean that we do not necessarily get a railway service to a particular town. What we get is a much better road service. There is a case which, I think, is being justified by events, where we make a centre for the collection of traffic at certain railheads, and which is then distributed and collected by road. Indeed, the zonal organisation is being carried out very effectively over some parts of the railway system at the present time.
Finally, I wish to say a word on the subject of nationalisation. I believe that it will present us with tremendous opportunities when we come to 1st January next. I would never subscribe to the doctrine that the only purpose of nationalisation is increased efficiency. I believe that, in the long run, increased efficiency is bound to result from the nationalisation of the transport system of this country. But that is not the only reason for socialising industry. We socialise industry in order that we may do what the hon. Member for Huntingdon suggested—make the fullest use of the talents of the people employed in it. My right hon. Friend the Minister asked the railway companies and the unions to set up a special consultative machinery for dealing with their difficulties during the next few months. If I may, I will quote from the circular that was issued on the subject. It said:
Subjects for discussions at meetings. It is suggested from the Companies' side, and irrespective of the questions that may be raised by the representatives of the staff, that the

general subject of discussion should be the difficulties under which the companies are operating, with explanations of companies' officers as to the contributory factors, and suggestions as to the remedies to be applied, with indications as to the directions in which the staff can be of particular assistance in bringing about improvement.
That is the beginning of my conception of what can happen under a socialised system where we bring into force the whole of the talents and experience of the man on the job in order to assist him. He is a stupid and shortsighted manager these days who does not make the fullest use of the ability which is reposing in the ranks of the people actually doing the work.
I want to say of this nationalised industry that it is going to become very much more a public service than it has been in the past. It will have a spirit pervading it which will enable everybody, at whatever level, to contribute the best he can to it. But that can only be done if the machinery is fully worked and if it is properly worked by both the trade union representatives and those on the managerial side. I think it is one of our important tasks to see that that is carried out.
That is a brief survey of the situation in which we are at the moment. On the longer term problems, I have not had much time to dilate this afternoon and I prefer not to do so. I believe that we are going to get through the winter. What I am equally certain about is that we shall need to strain every effort if we are to get through, but, from what I have seen of the leaders of the industry and of the trade unions I believe that the support will be forthcoming. From my experience at the Ministry during the month that I have been there, they are clearly transport men first, and politicians second. Whatever they think about the Nationalisation Act, the fact remains that they still believe the railways have to run, and run with the most efficiency they can get. If that spirit pervades this industry, as it pervades many other parts of industry, I have not much doubt about the future of Britain.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes to Four o'Clock.